CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 044 19.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Z.N.S. v. Turkey (application no. 21896/08)     IRANIAN REFUGEE CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE AT RISK OF ILL-TREATMENT IF DEPORTED TO HER HOME COUNTRY   unanimously   Applicant’s deportation would be in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention        Principal facts   The applicant, Z.N.S., is an Iranian national who was born in 1967. She entered Turkey illegally in February 2005 and is currently held in the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre. In Turkey she became interested in Christianity and converted to Protestantism. In May 2008 she was arrested on suspicion of infringement of visa requirements and forging official documents and was placed in the Foreigners’ Department of the Istanbul police headquarters with a view to her deportation from Turkey.   Ms Z.N.S. repeatedly requested to be released from detention and given a temporary residence permit pending the outcome of her application for refugee status to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”), stating that she was against the Government in Iran and that she and her family had been oppressed in that country. In June 2008 she was transferred to the Kırklareli Centre and in July she was informed that her case before the Turkish authorities was suspended pending the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. In December 2008 the applicant and her son were granted refugee status under the UNHCR’s mandate on religious grounds. A request she subsequently lodged with the administrative court against the decision not to suspend her detention was rejected and this decision was upheld by the regional court in June 2009.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 the applicant complained that her threatened deportation to Iran would expose her to a real risk of death or ill-treatment. Principally relying on Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1 and 4 she also complained that her detention was unlawful and that its conditions were poor.     The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 May 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges,   and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The applicant’s threatened deportation to Iran   The Court considered it appropriate to examine this part of the complaint under Article 3 alone. It observed that the national authorities had planned the applicant’s deportation without examining her statements to the effect that she did not wish to return to Iran and that she had come to Turkey in order to apply to the UNHCR. Moreover, her case before the Turkish authorities had been suspended pending the proceedings before the Court. The Court was therefore not convinced that the national authorities had conducted a meaningful assessment of whether the applicant’s claim that she was at a risk of ill-treatment in Iran was well-founded.   It further noted that the UNHCR, in interviewing the applicant, had had the opportunity to test the credibility of her fears and the veracity of her account and, as a result, had found that she indeed risked being subjected to persecution in Iran. The Court therefore concluded that there were substantial grounds for accepting that, on account of her religion, the applicant would risk being subjected to inhuman treatment if removed to her country of origin, in violation of Article 3.   Lawfulness of the detention   In another case [2] , the Court had already examined a grievance about the placement of detainees in the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre. In particular, in the absence of clear legal provisions in Turkey on the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to deportation and setting time-limits for such detention, it had found that such placement constituted a deprivation of liberty which was not “lawful” for the purposes of Article 5. In the applicant’s case, the Court did not find any circumstances requiring it to depart from those findings, in violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court observed that the applicant’s request seeking the annulment of the decision against her release had been refused and that her subsequent appeal had been dismissed. The initial review by the administrative courts had lasted two months and ten days. It noted that the proceedings had not raised any complex issues and that the administrative court assessing the applicant’s case should have been in a position to observe the lack of a sufficient legal basis for her detention. The Court therefore unanimously concluded that the Turkish legal system had not provided the applicant with a remedy allowing her to obtain a speedy judicial review of her detention, in violation of Article 5 § 4.   Detention conditions   Addressing the applicant’s complaints about the material conditions in the Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre, the Court noted that the applicant had failed to prove with appropriate arguments her allegation about the poor quality of the food and drinking water, and how the latter had affected her health. The fact that there were no facilities for physical exercise did not raise an issue under Article 3, given that the applicant was not continuously kept indoors. In terms of hygiene, the only shortcomings calling for criticism were the state of the toilets and the presence of cleaning products whose expiry dates had passed several years ago. Although the applicant’s detention might continue for an indeterminate period in the absence of clear time-limits in national law, it had not been established that the shortcomings in the material conditions were so severe as to bring them within the scope of Article 3. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of that Article on account of the applicant’s detention conditions.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   *** The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (no. 30471/08, 22 September 2009)