CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 juillet 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s7015FBD8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 563 13.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   D.B. v. Turkey (application no 33526/08)     ASYLUM SEEKER’s detention illegal and representation before the court seriously hampered   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 34 (individual applications) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, D.B., is an Iranian national who was born in 1984. He is currently in Sweden. He was an active member of the Communist Worker’s Party of Iran and the Freedom and Equality Seeking Students Movement in Iran. He was also on the board of editors of a well-known student journal. He submitted that numerous students involved in similar activities were arrested and imprisoned in 2007. Early in 2008, he arrived illegally in Turkey.   On 5 April 2008 D.B. was arrested by Turkish security forces and placed in the Edirne Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre. On 24 July 2008, his application for temporary asylum was rejected on the grounds of his ties with another Iranian national who presented a risk for national security. On the same day, D.B. was served with that decision and was informed that, unless he lodged an objection within two days, he would be deported to his home country. He lodged such an objection on 25 July 2008, requesting that the Turkish authorities contact the UNHCR, his lawyer and a non-governmental organisation, in order to receive documents and detailed information regarding his activities in Iran. On 9 September 2008 his objection was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, which considered that, in the light of D.B.’s militant background, there was a real risk that he would be taken to the United States of America where he would undergo military training and that he would be part of military operations targeting Iran. On 4 November 2008 D.B. was interviewed by the UNHCR’s Ankara office. On 20 March 2009 he was granted refugee status under the UNHCR’s mandate.   D.B. alleged that in both Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centres (in Edirne, and later in Kırklareli) in which he was held, he had been kept in solitary confinement. The Turkish Government maintained that the Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centres are not prisons, nor detention centres: there were no prison cells or sections where D.B. could be kept in solitary confinement; neither was there any instruction to that effect.   In April 2009, D.B.’s lawyer brought administrative proceedings asking for his release. He submitted that the Government of Sweden had accepted D.B. within the refugee quota for Sweden and that an aeroplane ticket to Sweden was booked for him for 27 May 2009. His request was rejected on 6 May 2009 by Ankara Administrative Court. That decision was upheld on 24 June 2009 by Ankara Regional Administrative Court. On 26 June 2009, D.B.’s lawyer renewed his request before Ankara Administrative Court. On 19 November 2009, the latter ordered D.B.’s release. On 24 November 2009, D.B. escaped from the Kırklareli Centre, but then surrendered to the police in order to be released, which was finally done on 3 February 2010.   D.B. left Turkey on 4 March 2010 and arrived in Sweden where he was granted refugee status.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), D.B. alleged that his detention pending extradition in Turkey had been unlawful, and that he did not have access to an effective remedy by which he could have challenged it. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of ill treatment) he further complained, in particular, of having been held in solitary confinement for eight months during his detention pending extradition. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 July 2008. On the same day, the President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to Turkey, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court , that D.B. should not be deported to Iran until 29 August 2008. His representative was also asked to submit a power of attorney authorising him to lodge an application with the Court on behalf of D.B.. However, D.B.’s lawyer was prevented by the Edirne Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre administration from visiting his client. The authorities argued that the reason for this was that the lawyer did not have a power of attorney to meet D.B. The Chamber President prolonged the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 until 24 October 2008. He also requested Turkey to allow, before 3 October 2008, D.B.’s lawyer - or any lawyer - to have access to him. Subsequently, the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre administration which refused to let a lawyer see D.B. On 8 October 2008, the Court’s interim measure indicated under Rule 39 was extended until further notice. Finally on 21 October 2008, a lawyer was allowed to meet D.B., who signed an authority form empowering his representative to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. In view of those circumstances, the Court raised the question of Turkey’s compliance with its obligation under Article 34 (individual applications), and a question on that point was put to the parties.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Alleged unlawful detention (Article 5 § 1)   The Court had already examined the same grievance in another case , where it had found that the placement of those applicants in the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre had constituted a deprivation of liberty. It had concluded that, in the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to deportation and setting time-limits for such detention, the applicants’ deprivation of liberty had been unlawful under Article 5.   The Court observed that the circumstances in D.B.’s case were almost the same. Moreover, by submitting that D.B. had escaped from the Kırklareli Centre, the Government implicitly accepted that he had been deprived of his liberty.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1   Alleged lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty (Article 5 § 4)   The Court noted in particular that D.B.’s lawyer had requested the annulment of the decision not to release D.B. on 26 June 2009 and that Ankara Administrative Court’s decision ordering D.B.’s release was only adopted on 19 November 2009. Having regard in particular to the time which elapsed between these dates, the Court found that the judicial review could not be regarded as a “speedy” reply to D.B.’s petition (as a comparison: in another case , the Court had decided that a period of 17 days for examining an appeal against detention during extradition proceedings had been too long).   The Turkish legal system had not provided D.B. with a remedy whereby he could obtain speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Alleged placement in solitary confinement (Article 3)   Neither D.B., nor the Turkish Government, provided the Court with sufficient details concerning whether D.B. was placed in solitary confinement. The Court considered that in view of its findings regarding the lawfulness of the D.B.’s detention in Edirne and Kırklareli Centres, the main legal question concerning that detention had been examined.   Hence, there was no need to make a separate ruling on this part of D.B.’s application.   Delay before D.B. could see a lawyer, in spite of interim measures indicated under Rule 39 (Article 34)   The Court underlined that the Government had failed to comply with the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.   It had further to determine whether there were objective impediments which prevented the Turkish Government from complying with the interim measure in due time. In this connection, the Court could not accept the argument put forward by the authorities to the effect that D.B. could not meet a lawyer in order to provide a power of attorney for the Court because that lawyer did not have a power of attorney to meet D.B. in the first place. Because of that initial administrative obtuseness, the Court considered that the application had been put in jeopardy, since D.B. could not sign a power of attorney and provide more detailed information concerning the alleged risks that he would face in Iran.   The Court concluded that D.B.’s effective representation before the Court had been seriously hampered. In the Court’s view, the fact that he had subsequently been able to meet a lawyer, sign the authority form and provide the information regarding his situation in Iran had not altered the lack of timely action by the authorities, which had been incompatible with Turkey’s obligations. There had therefore been a violation of Article 34.   Just satisfaction (application of Article 41)   The Court held that Turkey had to pay D.B. 11,000 euros (EUR) for the non-pecuniary damage that he had sustained as a result of the violations, together with EUR 158 for costs and expenses.   ***   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 .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .