AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 24077/19
Muzaffer AYDIN against Türkiye
and 18 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nineteen Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in Appendix I (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning conditions of detention under Article 3 of the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  At the time of the events giving rise to the present applications, the applicants were detained in closed penal institutions for terrorism-related offences in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.

2.  The applications concern the allegedly inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention, in particular overcrowding, under Article 3 of the Convention (see for the relevant information Appendices II and III below).

3.  All applicants brought proceedings before enforcement judges on different dates. Their objections were later dismissed by the assize courts. Subsequently, they submitted individual applications complaining about their conditions of detention to the Constitutional Court, which rejected them as inadmissible on various dates specified in Appendix I.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly.

5.  In their observations submitted in respect of certain applications (nos. 2186/20, 14870/20, 39382/20 and 45424/20), the Government argued that the applicants in those cases had failed to appoint a representative and, accordingly, invited the Court to strike the applications out of its list of cases, under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

6.  The Court notes that at the time the Government were given notice of the applications, the President of the Section granted leave to the applicants who were not represented by a lawyer to present their own case before the Court, in application of Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of Court. That being the case, the Government’s request must be dismissed.

7.  Before the Court, all applicants complained of overcrowding (see for further details Appendices II and III below).

8.  In addition to their complaints of overcrowding, the applicants in applications nos. 27572/19; 33060/19; 4517/20; 6514/20; no. 11531/20; 14870/20; 39382/20 and 41743/20 also complained about having to sleep on mattresses on the floor. The Government acknowledged these conditions but argued that the applicants had always been provided with individual mattresses and bedding and had not been required to sleep in shifts. They further stated that the issue had been resolved as soon as the population of the affected units had been reduced to match the number of available bunk beds.

9.  The applicants in applications nos. 11531/20; 34246/20; 41743/20; 41780/20; 45065/20 and 55315/20 also complained of the sanitary and hygiene conditions in the prisons. The applicants in applications nos. 50207/20; 55194/20 and 55315/20 also complained, among other issues, about the insufficient number of toilets and showers in the unit, which had resulted in long queues. The Government responded that each cell was equipped with at least two sanitary facilities, depending on its size, and that these facilities were fully enclosed by doors. They asserted that all applicants had daily access to both cold and hot water, and that in certain prisons usage of hot and cold water had been capped at 50 to 200 litres respectively per prisoner. Furthermore, cleaning supplies were provided by the prison administration free of charge.

10.  The applicant Kutlay Telli (application no. 34246/20) alleged that he had been exposed to passive smoking at Silivri No. 6 L-Type Prison from 23 July 2016 to 4 April 2018. In support, he submitted a decision of the Silivri Enforcement Judge on his petition of 30 July 2018, in which he had complained of overcrowding, requested improved conditions and sought a transfer to a non-smoking ward. The judge acknowledged the increase in detainees but found that the prison was not required to provide non-smoking units and that no such ward existed for inmates in the applicant’s offence category. The Assize Court upheld this decision. The applicant also submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court, arguing that, despite his later transfer to a non-smoking ward, the domestic courts had ruled as if he had remained in smoking wards.

11.  The Government submitted that during his detention, the applicant had access to a 65 sq. m outdoor yard for 10–11 hours daily and that his unit had 12 windows ensuring ventilation. They cited regulations restricting smoking to designated areas and noted that non-smoking wards were available for detainees with specific needs. In 2018, room A-3 was designated as a non-smoking ward, where the applicant was accommodated from 4 April 2018.

12.  The applicant contested these claims, stating that his repeated requests for a non-smoking ward between 2016 and 2018 had been ignored. He alleged that smoke from the dining hall infiltrated his cell, preventing him from using communal areas, eating or sleeping and causing breathing difficulties. Despite multiple complaints, he claimed no measures were taken to address the issue.

13.  In their observations, the Government raised several objections as to the admissibility of the applications, most of them concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies. However, it is not necessary to examine these objections as the applications are in any event inadmissible for the reasons stated below.

14.  As to the complaints of overcrowding, the Government submitted tables to the Court containing specific details about each applicant’s detention, including the measurements of the cells where they had been held. These tables also indicated the minimum and maximum living space available to each applicant, depending on the number of persons detained with them during the relevant period (see Appendix II). However, these figures were not supported by a prison register, and the periods when the number of inmates was below the maximum were not specified.

15.  In the light of the methodology adopted in İlerde and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 35614/19 and 10 others, § 175, 5 December 2023), the Court decides to revise the figures submitted by the Government, excluding the sanitary facilities and outdoor yards from the calculation of the overall space. The revised figures for each applicant are set out in Appendix III.

16.  The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑141, 20 October 2016). It reiterates that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122‑41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).

17.  In İlerde and Others (cited above), the Court has examined issues similar to those in the present case. It assessed the complaints of the applicants regarding their conditions of detention in three categories based on personal space: less than 3 sq. m, between 3 sq. m and 4 sq. m, and more than 4 sq. m. (ibid., §§ 169-99). The Court will apply the same categorisation in its assessment of the current applications.

(a)   Conclusion in respect of the applicant who had less than 3 sq. m of personal space

18.  The Court notes that only Talat Akbaş had less than 3 sq. m of personal living space in cell A-2 of the Sincan T-Type Prison between 1 August 2018 and 5 August 2018, after which he was transferred to another unit providing more than 3 sq. m of personal space. In respect of that period of detention, the Court notes that a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 arises. This presumption can be rebutted only where the following requirements are cumulatively met, namely where short, occasional and minor reductions of personal space are accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell and adequate out-of-cell activities and confinement in what is, when viewed generally, an appropriate detention facility (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 137-38).

19.  The Court notes that the applicant’s personal space was reduced to below 3 sq. m for four days, during which he had 2.97 sq. m of space. This period can be considered a short and minor reduction in personal space, during which the applicant had sufficient freedom of movement and access to the outdoor yard. Furthermore, he was detained in what, overall, was an appropriate detention facility. Therefore, his complaint concerning the above‑mentioned period of detention is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

(b)   Conclusion in respect of applicants who had between 3 sq. m and 4 sq. m of personal space

20.  The Court notes that all applicants except Muzaffer Aydın and Kutlay Telli had personal space ranging from 3 to 4 sq. m at some point during their detention, although the exact duration cannot be determined from the information submitted by the parties.

21.  The Court has previously examined in İlerde and Others (cited above, §§ 190-95) conditions such as those experienced by the applicants, including issues such as sleeping on a mattress on the floor, inadequate ventilation, insufficient sanitary facilities and hygiene and restrictions on water, and considered that the cumulative impact of these conditions did not meet the severity threshold required to qualify as inhuman or degrading under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court observes that all complaints from the applicants regarding their conditions of detention encompass the same issues as those addressed in İlerde and Others v. Türkiye (cited above).

22.  In line with the findings in İlerde and Others v. Türkiye (cited above, §§ 191-95) the Court does not find that these conditions met the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading under Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded.

(c)   Conclusion in respect of applicants who had more than 4 sq. m of personal space

23.  The Court reaffirms its previous conclusion regarding the periods during which the applicants had more than 4 sq. m of personal living space. It reiterates that in cases where a detainee had more than 4 sq. m of personal space at his disposal in multi-occupancy accommodation in prison, no issue with regard to the question of personal space arises, yet other aspects of physical conditions of detention including those referred to above (see paragraph 21) remain relevant for the Court’s assessment.

24.  The Court observes that all applicants’ complaints regarding their conditions of detention raise the same issues as those addressed in İlerde and Others v. Türkiye. Kutlay Telli is the only applicant to raise an additional complaint concerning passive smoking. In this regard, the Court notes the following: (i) The applicant appears to have tolerated the smoking, and although he refers to both written and oral complaints submitted to the authorities, he has failed to provide any proof that he lodged complaints regarding passive smoking with the prison authorities during his detention in a smoking ward from 23 July 2016 to 4 April 2018; (ii) The only evidence the applicant submits is a petition dated 30 July 2018, in which he requested a transfer to a non-smoking ward, yet his statement in his individual application before the Constitutional Court indicates that he had already been transferred to such a ward on 4 April 2018; (iii) While he generally refers to lung-related health issues caused by passive smoking, he has failed to provide any supporting evidence to have suffered any health issues himself (see, by contrast, Elefteriadis v. Romania, no. 38427/05, § 51, 25 January 2011). Based on these findings, the Court is not convinced that this issue, either alone or in combination with other significant aspects of his detention, subjected him to distress or hardship beyond the inevitable suffering inherent in detention.

25.  Considering its earlier findings on other aspects of the applicants’ detention and the conditions in the relevant prisons, the Court concludes that the conditions of the applicants’ detention do not meet the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading under Article 3 of the Convention. As a result, this complaint is manifestly ill‑founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Rejects the Government’s request to strike applications nos. 2186/20, 14870/20, 39382/20 and 45424/20 out of its list of cases;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 June 2025.

 Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
APPENDIX I: LIST OF CASES

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality

Represented by

Date of the Constitutional Court’s decisions

1.

24077/19

Aydın v. Türkiye

17/04/2019

Muzaffer AYDIN
1971
Bursa
Turkish

Betül Feyza UĞUR AYDIN

27/03/2019

2.

27572/19

Mert v. Türkiye

19/04/2019

Ramazan MERT
1986
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Ahmet ZEYBEKOĞLU

22/02/2019

3.

33060/19

Çaylı v. Türkiye

28/05/2019

Ramazan ÇAYLI
1978
Zonguldak
Turkish

Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ

10/01/2019

4.

2186/20

Kali v. Türkiye

23/12/2019

İbrahim KALİ
1971
Ankara
Turkish

22/7/2019

5.

4517/20

Akbaş v. Türkiye

07/01/2020

Talat AKBAŞ
1970
Adana
Turkish

Enes Malik KILIÇ

01/07/2019 (notified on 09/07/2019)

6.

4526/20

Öbekçi v. Türkiye

26/12/2019

Yusuf ÖBEKÇİ
1971
Ankara
Turkish

Hüseyin YALÇIN

04/12/2019

7.

6514/20

Yirik v. Türkiye

13/01/2020

Şevket YİRİK
1983
Kocaeli
Turkish

Metehan USLUEROL

18/11/2019

8.

11531/20

Uzan v. Türkiye

19/02/2020

Ahmet UZAN
1978
İzmir
Turkish

Yüksel ERSOY

17/12/2019

9.

14870/20

Pirim v. Türkiye

12/02/2020

Yasin PİRİM
1981
İzmir
Turkish

17/12/2019

10.

34246/20

Telli v. Türkiye

24/07/2020

Kutlay TELLİ
1979
Ankara
Turkish

İhsan MAKAS

10/04/2020

11.

39382/20

Fidan v. Türkiye

07/08/2020

Mehmet Mahsun FİDAN
1994
İzmir
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

30/06/2020

12.

41743/20

İpek v. Türkiye

21/08/2020

Mustafa İPEK
1977
İzmir
Turkish

İbrahim TOKTAMIŞ

16/07/2020

13.

41780/20

Çiçek v. Türkiye

15/09/2020

Bedretin ÇİÇEK
1981
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

Melek KOÇYİĞİT

11/06/2020

14.

45065/20

Öbekçi v. Türkiye

16/09/2020

Yusuf ÖBEKÇİ
1971
Ankara
Turkish

Hüseyin YALÇIN

23/07/2020

15.

45424/20

Coşkun v. Türkiye

29/09/2020

Ali COŞKUN
1987
Osmaniye
Turkish

30/06/2020

16.

50050/20

Arukan v. Türkiye

14/10/2020

Ali ARUKAN
1980
Kastamonu
Turkish

Neda BUYRUKÇU

30/06/2020

17.

50207/20

Eryılmaz v. Türkiye

20/10/2020

Ali ERYILMAZ
1979
Karabük
Turkish

Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ

06/10/2020

18.

55194/20

Çiçin v. Türkiye

24/11/2020

Aydın ÇİÇİN
1974
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

30/09/2020

19.

55315/20

Vuruşkan v. Türkiye

02/12/2020

Yunus VURUŞKAN
1989
Çorum
Turkish

Neda BUYRUKÇU

03/09/2020

APPENDIX II: DATA SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT

APPENDIX III
CALCULATION BASED ON THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED IN İLERDE AND OTHERS