CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s9E354500 { height:38.7pt } .sFA6A4DF3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA05D2921 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s87D973DC { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.85pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEBCD263B { height:28.6pt } .sEFE2FACD { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC50AE8B1 { height:42.4pt } .sC465E8B1 { height:42.3pt } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20148/25 M.S. against Türkiye and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 30 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the orders for the applicants’ expulsion to safe third countries or their voluntary return to their country of origin. The applicants are Syrian nationals who fled to Türkiye in 2013 and 2014 with their families as a result of acts of indiscriminate violence. They were granted temporary protection in Türkiye. The first and third applicants were informed that restriction codes ( G ‑ 87 tahdit kodu ) had been imposed on them. The second applicant was informed that the Migration Authority had received a police intelligence report alleging his affiliation with terrorist organisations (PKK/YPG). On various dates indicated in the appended table, the relevant Governors’ Offices issued deportation orders against the applicants, citing section 54(d) of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458). The deportation orders specified that the applicants could be deported to the designated safe third countries, or that they could voluntarily return to Syria. Following these orders, all applicants were placed under administrative detention. On various dates the administrative courts dismissed the applicants’ appeals for the annulment of the deportation orders. Their subsequent appeals before the Turkish Constitutional Court were all dismissed as being manifestly ill-founded (see appended table for specific details concerning the deportation orders, judicial proceedings, and designated safe third countries). The first and second applicants complain under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an adequate “safe third country” assessment, particularly concerning the risk of chain refoulement to Syria. All applicants further allege a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on the basis that their threatened removal to the designated countries, with which they have no established ties, would disproportionately interfere with their established family and private life in Türkiye. The first applicant also relies on Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with his complaints under Articles 2, 3 and   8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES (For all applications) 1.     Would the implementation of the orders to expel the applicants from Türkiye be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate aim pursued and the applicants’ right to respect for family life (see, mutatis mutandis , Üner v.   the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-60, ECHR 2006-XII ; Maslov v.   Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 63, ECHR 2008; Levakovic v.   Denmark , no.   7841/14, §§ 42-45, 23 October 2018; and Corley and Others v.   Russia , nos.   292/06 and 43490/06, § 95, 23 November 2021)?   (For applications nos. 20148/25 and 20626/25) 2.     Are the applicants currently under threat of removal to the designated third countries or to Syria? If so, would their expulsion entail a real risk that they would be subjected to treatment in violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no.   47287/15, §§   139-150, 21 November 2019; J.K. and Others v.   Sweden [GC], no.   59166/12, § 77-123, 23 August 2016; S.H.H. v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 60367/10, § 69-95, 29 January 2013; A.A. v.   Switzerland , no.   32218/17, §§ 39-59, 5 November 2019; and M.A. and Others v.   Bulgaria , no.   5115/18, §§ 68-84, 20 February 2020)?   3.     Did the domestic authorities’ decision to consider the designated destinations as “safe third countries” and to order the applicants’ expulsion towards those countries expose them to a real risk of being subjected to death and/or ill-treatment? In particular, did the domestic authorities and courts conduct an adequate examination of the question whether the asylum procedures in those designated countries afford sufficient guarantees to avoid the applicants being arbitrarily removed, directly or indirectly, to their country of origin without a proper evaluation of the risks they face from the standpoint of Article 2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see Auad v.   Bulgaria , no.   46390/10, § 106, 11 October 2011; Ilias and Ahmed , cited above, §§   139-150, and mutatis mutandis , M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece   [GC], no.   30696/09, §§ 283 and 358, ECHR 2011)?   (For application no. 20148/25) 4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if he were to be deported, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example , Asalya v.   Turkey , no.   43875/09, §§ 113 14, 15 April 2014)? 5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8 as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, §   83, ECHR   2012;   Al-Nashif v. Bulgari a , no. 50963/99, § 133, 20 June 2002; and M. and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 41416/08, §§ 122-32, 26 July 2011)?   The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents pertinent to the deportation, including any risk assessment conducted by the domestic authorities concerning the potential risks faced by the first and the second applicants upon removal to the designated safe third countries. In particular, the Government are requested to submit a copy of all documents relating to the scope and content of the safe third country assessment forms issued by the Presidency of Migration Management.   APPENDIX (anonymity has been granted) No. Application no. Case title Related Proceedings Deportation Order (Date / Authority) Dismissal of Annulment Lawsuits Date of TCC Dismissals Designated Safe Third Country Duration of Residence in Türkiye 1 20148/25 M.S. v. Türkiye Imposition of “G-87” restriction code 27 March 2024 – Bursa Governor’s Office Bursa Administrative Court – 26 June 2024 17 December 2024 Ecuador Since 2014 2 20626/25 H.R. v. Türkiye Police intelligence on alleged affiliation with terrorist organisations (PKK/YPG) 18 January 2025 – Gaziantep Governor’s Office Gaziantep Administrative Court – 18 January 2025 29 May 2025 Malaysia Since 2013 3 25921/25 A.K. v. Türkiye Imposition of “G-87” restriction code 20 March 2024 – Bursa Governor’s Office Bursa Administrative Court – 20 March 2024 21 May 2025 Ecuador Since 2013