CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juin 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 197 June 2016 Sakkal and Fares v. Turkey (dec.) - 52902/15 Decision 7.6.2016 [Section II] Article 13 Effective remedy Alleged inability to challenge applicants’ deportation orders: inadmissible Facts – In September 2015 the applicants – a Syrian national and two stateless Palestinians – were arrested in Turkey on suspicion of breaching the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no.   2911) during a march by Syrian refugees. They were then transferred to a centre where they were detained pending their removal to Syria. In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained, inter alia , about the alleged inability to challenge their deportation orders before the national courts, in breach of Article   13 of the Convention. Law – Article 13 in conjunction with Articles   2 and 3: The Court had to examine whether the applicants had had an effective domestic remedy capable of affording redress for the alleged violation of their rights under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention, and, if so, whether they had exhausted that remedy. The fact that the Court had declared the applicants’ complaints under Articles   2 and 3 inadmissible ratione personae , since they no longer faced a risk of deportation from Turkey to Syria or elsewhere, did not necessarily exclude the operation of Article   13. The applicants claimed that they had been held incommunicado between 24   September and 23   October 2015 and it appeared that they had indeed been unable to meet with their lawyers during that period. However, a lawyer was present when they were first questioned and it was clear that, during their detention, they had maintained contact with their representative, whom they telephoned twice. Moreover, the Government had submitted a document signed by the applicants and a lawyer attached to Refugee Rights Turkey, according to which they met with her in October 2015. Notwithstanding the difficulties in obtaining powers of attorney, these contacts with their representatives had been sufficient to enable the applicants to exercise the right to lodge an application with the administrative court to stay the enforcement of their deportation and also to lodge an individual application with the Constitutional Court, which was competent to examine it. The remedies available were therefore effective for the purposes of Article   13 of the Convention. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (See also the Factsheet on Migrants in detention )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes