CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 132 July 2010 D.B. v. Turkey - 33526/08 Judgment 13.7.2010 [Section II] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Inability of an asylum-seeker in a detention centre to hold meetings with a lawyer despite the indication of an interim measure by the European Court: violation   Facts – In 2008 the applicant, an Iranian national, arrived illegally in Turkey and was subsequently arrested and placed in a Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre (“the Centre”). On 17   July 2008 the Court indicated to the Government of Turkey, under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be deported to Iran before 29   August 2008. On the same day the applicant’s representative was requested to submit a power of attorney authorising him to lodge an application with the Court on behalf of the applicant. On 21   July 2008 a lawyer instructed by the applicant’s representative was prevented from visiting the applicant by the Centre administration. On 26   August 2008 the Court prolonged the interim measure and requested the Turkish Government, under Rule   39, to allow, before 3   October 2008, the applicant’s representative (or another advocate) to have access to the applicant in the Centre with a view to obtaining a power of attorney and information concerning the alleged risks that the applicant would face in Iran. On 5   September 2008 another lawyer attempted but was not allowed to see the applicant. On 8   October 2008 the Court decided to extend until further notice the interim measure indicated under Rule   39 and to communicate the application to the Government. On 21   October 2008 a lawyer was allowed to meet the applicant, who signed an authority form empowering his representative to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. The applicant left Turkey in 2010 and was granted refugee status in Sweden. Law – Article 34: The Court had decided to raise of its own motion the question of Turkey’s compliance with its obligation under Article   34. It was not until thirteen days after the deadline given by the Court that the competent authorities had been instructed to authorise the applicant to meet a lawyer and not until eighteen days after the deadline had the applicant been able to meet a lawyer and sign an authority form. The Government had therefore failed to comply with necessary diligence with the interim measure indicated under Rule   39. The Court could not accept the Government’s argument that the applicant could not meet a lawyer in order to provide a power of attorney for the Court because the lawyer did not have an authority to meet the applicant in the first place. Because of this initial administrative obtuseness, the application had been put in jeopardy, since he had not been able to sign a power of attorney and provide more detailed information concerning the alleged risks he would face in Iran. The effective representation of the applicant before the Court had been seriously hampered. The fact that the applicant had subsequently been able to meet a lawyer, sign the authority form and provide the information regarding his situation in Iran did not alter the conclusion that the lack of timely action on the part of the authorities had been incompatible with the respondent Government’s obligations under Article   34. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). The Court also found a violation of Article   5 §§   1 and   4 (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 11,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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