Published on 13 October 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 8918/24
Sedef AYVAZ
against Türkiye
lodged on 18 March 2024
communicated on 25 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention regarding the circumstances she and her infant child, I.M.A., endured during her pre-trial detention, which lasted a total of seven and a half months. The applicant alleges the following issues:
Overcrowding and poor material conditions of detention, lack of adequate medical care while in detention, failure of the prison authorities to forward her complaints to the relevant authorities, lack of an effective investigation or examination by the authorities into her complaints, and absence of an effective remedy for her grievances.
The applicant was detained on three separate occasions: On 16 July 2016 the applicant was held in police custody with her 53-day-old infant for one day; between 22 July 2016 and 4 August 2016 she was detained with her child, who was then two months old; and between 17 March 2017 and 13 October 2017 the applicant was detained with her child, who was nine months old at the beginning of this period.
The applicant asserts that, although she submitted several petitions intended for the prison administration, the public prosecutor and the enforcement judge, she received only one response from the enforcement judge, a decision dated 21 September 2017. In that decision, the enforcement judge, relying on a letter from the prison administration and the opinion of the public prosecutor, dismissed her claims, including her assertion that her petitions had not been forwarded to the relevant authorities. The judge concluded that the applicant should have first directed her complaints to the prison administration. This decision was later upheld by the Assize Court.
On 14 August 2017 the applicant’s father lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor, alleging that his daughter (the applicant) was experiencing difficulties in prison in obtaining and accessing essential supplies for her child, and that her petitions concerning these issues were not being forwarded to the relevant authorities. On 22 November 2017 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute, based on a letter received from the prison administration asserting that these complaints were unfounded.
Subsequently, on 5 October 2023 the applicant’s individual application to the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible. As regards her complaints concerning the conditions of her detention, the Constitutional Court held that, following her release on 13 October 2017, the applicant had the possibility to pursue a compensation claim before the ordinary courts, which it considered to constitute an effective remedy. In relation to her allegation that some of the petitions she submitted during her detention were not forwarded to the relevant authorities, the Constitutional Court found the complaint manifestly ill-founded, noting that a total of 42 petitions had already been forwarded to the competent authorities. The decision was served on the applicant on 5 February 2024.
Before the Court the applicant relies on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and complains of the aforementioned circumstances.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, by the conditions in which she was detained together with her infant child (see Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, §§ 128-147, 24 March 2016; A.M. and Others v. France, no. 7534/20, § 16, 4 May 2023; and A.C. and M.C. v. France, no. 4289/21, § 43, 4 May 2023)?
The Government are requested to provide observations on the applicant’s allegations concerning the conditions of her detention with her infant child, addressing in particular the following points:
a) Were the applicant and her infant child detained in overcrowded conditions? Please specify the surface area (in square meters) of the dormitories and common areas in the units where the applicant and her child were held, the duration of their stay in each unit, and the number of detainees during those periods.
b) Did the applicant’s child have access to sufficient and age-appropriate nutrition, taking into account her health condition (including kidney disease and delayed growth in terms of weight and height)? The applicant referred to a medical report of 5 May 2017 in this regard, which she claims having submitted to the prison authorities in her petition of 9 May 2017. Was the applicant provided with a refrigerator to store the infant’s nutrition, or was an alternative solution offered?
c) Did the applicant’s child have access to adequate medical care? In particular, was the applicant able to obtain the necessary ultrasound scans and urine analyses for her child? Were the urine samples of the child prepared by the applicant collected timely by prison staff for analysis?
The Government are invited to submit copies of the applicant’s child’s medical records in view of her allegations concerning lack of access to adequate medical care.
d) Did the applicant and her breastfed infant child have to be separated due to the lack of access to timely and adequate medical care in prison? In particular,
- In light of the applicant’s assertions and an undated, unsigned document purportedly issued by the Tekirdağ No. 1 T-Type Prison Directorate, was the applicant, who was breastfeeding at the time, persuaded to have her child handed over to relatives between 26 and 29 May 2017 to ensure that the child received timely medical care?
- Did the child receive prompt treatment for a fever on 31 May 2017, considering the applicant’s claim that medication, which the doctor deemed urgently necessary, was provided only 30 hours later? The applicant further contends that, as a result of the delayed access to adequate and timely treatment, the child’s condition worsened, making it necessary for the child to be handed over again to her parents.
e) Did the child have access to an adequate mattress and bed upon arrival in the prison unit? If not, when were these provided, and what were the sleeping arrangements for the infant prior to that?
f) Were the hygienic conditions in the prison unit, including the cleanliness of the dishes provided for meals, adequate in terms of meeting the sterilisation requirements for dishes used for an infant child? Furthermore, please comment on the adequacy of ventilation, the availability of access to sunlight and fresh air, the provision of water, the adequacy and sufficiency of the sanitary facilities and the temperature in the cell, particularly whether it was excessively hot in summer or excessively cold during the remaining period, as well as any measures taken to address these issues.
g) Were the applicant and her child exposed to passive smoking?
h) Did the applicant and her child have sufficient access to hot water, including appropriate conditions, time and equipment for bathing the infant?
2. Did the domestic authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s claims that her complaints about prison conditions incompatible with Article 3 were not forwarded to the relevant authorities? Were the merits of her complaints adequately examined, and was the applicant properly heard in this regard (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no 23380/09, §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015)?
3. Did the applicant have access to effective domestic remedies, both preventive and compensatory, for her complaints concerning the conditions of detention for herself and her infant under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Nikitin and Others v. Estonia, nos. 23226/16 and 6 others, §207, 29 January 2019, and İlerde and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 35614/19 and 10 others, §§ 154-165, 5 December 2023)? In particular, could a compensation claim before the administrative courts in a case such as hers be considered effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see İlerde and Others, cited above, § 164). The Government are invited to submit any developments in the domestic case-law in this respect.
4. The Government are further requested to provide all relevant information and documentation relating to the issues raised in the aforementioned questions, including photographs and/or video footage of the cells where the applicant and her infant child were detained, as well as the areas to which they had access. These materials should depict their sleeping, eating, bathing and general living arrangements, along with facilities available for the child’s recreation.
Additionally, the Government are requested to provide comprehensive information regarding the legislation and practice governing the co-detention of infant children with their detained parents during the pre-trial stage, particularly with respect to:
- the age of minor children,
- the suitability of detention facilities in meeting the specific needs of such children, and
- the permissible duration of their detention (compare also Korneykova and Korneykov, cited above, §§ 129-130, and mutatis mutandis M.D. and A.D. v. France, no. 57035/18, § 63, 22 July 2021).