SECOND SECTION
Application no. 30518/11
Ramiz ALİEV
against Turkey
lodged on 26 March 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ramiz Aliev, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Kırklareli. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Yılmaz and Mr A. Yılmaz, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2006 the applicant entered Turkey legally but stayed in the country following the expiration of the visa which had been issued in respect of him.
On 5 November 2009 he was arrested in Edirne and was held in the custody of the gendarmerie until his transfer to the Tunca Foreigners’ Camp in Edirne two days later.
After having stayed at that camp for a period of two days, on 9 November 2009 the applicant was transferred once again, this time to the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in Kırklareli.
According to his submissions, the applicant informed the authorities several times of his wish to claim asylum but all of his petitions to that effect were disregarded. He alleges that he was beaten during his stay there but did not file a complaint as he was scared.
On 1 September 2010 the applicant’s representative requested from the Kırklareli Governorship and the Ministry of Interior that the applicant be released.
On 13 and 16 September 2010 respectively, two interviews were conducted with the applicant in order to assess his asylum request. During these interviews, he was informed about the procedure to be followed.
On 27 September 2010 the applicant was released. Subsequently, on 29 September 2010, the Kırklareli Governorship informed his representative that the applicant had been released and granted a temporary residence permit in Kırklareli upon a decision of the Ministry of Interior. He was also given a card, indicating that his application for asylum had been registered.
In the meantime, the applicant went to Istanbul. The next day, on 1 October 2010, he was arrested and taken into police custody at the Istanbul Fatih police headquarters on suspicion of attempted thievery. He was brought before the Fatih public prosecutor and was released subsequently by the Fatih Magistrates’ Court. Nevertheless, on the same day he was taken back to the police headquarters and placed in custody once again.
On 4 and 7 October 2010 respectively the applicant had two meetings with his representative. On the latter date the representative held a report, indicating that the applicant was being held in the basement of the police headquarters, in a 2 x 4 m room with around ten other people. He noted that all of the detainees sat on the floor with their backs against the wall, sharing three blankets, and that there was only one small window in the room, which overlooked a garbage pile. The report also stated that the applicant had complained of the cold and lack of natural light in the room.
On the next day, 8 October 2010 an officer from the Kırklareli Directorate of Security informed the applicant’s representative, upon a telephone call from the latter, that the applicant was being held at the Fatih police headquarters with a view to being deported later on.
On 9 October 2010 the applicant was transferred to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre as the basement of the Fatih police headquarters, where he had been held up to that day, was flooded. On the same day the applicant was informed that he would stay there until the time the Kırklareli Directorate of Security requested his transfer in order to conclude his asylum application.
The applicant was released from the Kumkapı Admission and Accommodation Centre and was told to go to Kırklareli on 19 October 2010.
On 21 October 2010 the applicant’s representative was notified of the said release.
On 12 November 2010 the applicant was once more placed in the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre.
According to the applicant’s allegations, during his time there, on 1 December 2010 he was beaten by certain police officers. Subsequently, on the same day he was taken to the Trakya University Hospital. According to the medical report drawn up before his release on 23 December 2010, the applicant claimed that he had been beaten and complained of lack of vision and pain in his left eye. The report indicated that he had been diagnosed with retrobulbar hemorrhage as well as orbital floor fracture and had stayed at the hospital for a period of twenty two days, during which time he had undergone a surgery.
On 28 December 2010 the applicant filed a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor, arguing that he had been beaten by several police officers during his time at the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre. He indicated that an officer had pushed him to the ground, as a result of which he had hit his eye against the heater and had passed out. He further maintained that although he had been taken to the Kırklareli police headquarters following his release from the hospital, he had not filed a complaint then as he had been scared.
The investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and the procedure concerning his request for asylum were still pending at the time the application was lodged with the Court.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
A description of the relevant domestic law and practice as well as international material may be found in the case of Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (no. 30471/08, §§ 29-51, 22 September 2009).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention at the Tunca Camp for Foreigners, where he was held for two days in 2009, and at the Fatih police headquarters, where he was detained for nine days in 2010. He argues in this respect that the conditions in both of these places amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in that they did not comply with the hygiene standards and in the latter place up to fifteen detainees were held in rooms of 2 x 4 m with no heating, natural light or ventilation. The applicant further alleges under the same Article that he was beaten by police officers at the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre.
Relying upon Article 5 § 1 and 2 of the Convention, the applicant maintains that he was held in detention for a total period of one year and twenty five days without there being any legal basis and that he was not informed of the reasons of his detention. He submits under Article 5 § 3 that he was not brought before a judge following his detention in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c).
The applicant further argues under Article 5 § 4 and 5 of the Convention that he did not have access to any domestic remedy to request his release, challenge the lawfulness of his detention or claim compensation for the unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant finally complains that there exists no effective remedy in domestic law whereby he could have his allegations under Articles 3 and 5 examined.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. (a) Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the Fatih police headquarters compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
(b) Is there an effective domestic remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicant could have complained about the conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during the time he was held at the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in November and December 2010?
The Government are invited to inform the Court about the outcome of the investigation instigated against the police officers at the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre.
3. (a) Has a deportation order been issued in respect of the applicant? If not, with reference to the complaint raised under Article 5 of the Convention, what was the reason for his detention at the Tunca Foreigners’ Camp and the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre?
(b) Did the applicant’s detention comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (f) of this provision?
(c) Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention, when he was detained?
(d) Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
(e) Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
The Parties are requested to inform the Court about the outcome of the asylum procedure and the applicant’s current situation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy