SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33496/09
Ceylan GÜRBÜZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Ceylan Gürbüz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971. He is detained in Silivri L-type Prison.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicant was detained in various prison facilities for execution prison sentences imposed on him with regard to several offences. In 2000, another investigation was initiated against the applicant for killing five inmates and, in 2011, the applicant was convicted for multiple homicides.
5. Meanwhile, on 19 June 2008, upon a request of the administration of Burdur E-type Prison and as a result of the continuous problems caused by the applicant, the Directorate of Prisons of the Ministry of Justice issued an order for Mr Gürbüz’s transfer to the high security section of the Alanya L‑type Prison for safety purposes.
6. Subsequently, the applicant was placed in a single-person unit in the Alanya Prison, where he was detained between 1 July and 22 September 2008.
7. The applicant’s unit covered a surface area of 8.30 square-meters, and was equipped with a bathroom with a surface area of 2.70 square-meters. The unit had access to a ventilation yard of 62 square-meters, which the applicant could use for one hour per day. The unit was controlled by security cameras and had an emergency call button. It was open to receive radio and television broadcasts but the applicant did not buy any devices from the administration. Although he was permitted to receive visitors and make phone calls every two weeks, he did not receive any visitors during his stay in that unit and contacted his relatives only three times by telephone.
8. On 7 July 2008 the Enforcement Court rejected the applicant’s objection to his transfer to the high security section, indicating that he had been transferred for safety reasons, pursuant to the order of the Directorate of Prisons and in line with Article 8 (1) of Circular no. 45/1, pertaining to the transfer of convicts and detainees. The final decision on the matter rendered by the Assize Court was served on the applicant on 29 July 2008.
9. The applicant filed six repetitive objections which were all rejected. The last decision was based on a medical check-up of the applicant made on 22 September 2008 as his complaints were related to his health. This last decision was served on the applicant on 30 October 2008 at the Izmir Prison, where he was transferred in September 2008, and held in a unit with a capacity of three inmates.
10. After his transfer, the applicant introduced a criminal complaint for abuse of authority against the officials of the Alanya Prison, claiming that they had isolated him during his stay in that establishment and had not provided him with water during a period of water cuts in town. The Alanya public prosecutor’s decision of non-prosecution decision was served on the applicant on 23 June 2009.
COMPLAINTS
11. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment at the Alanya Prison as a result of his solitary confinement which lasted for a period of sixty days. He further alleges that he was ill-treated by the Alanya Prison Administration, who did not give him water for a period of three days and that as a result he suffered from a urinary infection, for which he received no treatment.
12. The applicant further argues that he could not have his complaints examined effectively by the domestic authorities.
THE LAW
13. The applicant alleges that the conditions of his detention in Alanya prison constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
14. The Government considers that the complaint is submitted out of the six months’ time-limit as decisions on the matter were all rendered in 2008.
15. The Court observes that the last decision on multiple repetitive objections of the applicant on being put in a single unit was served on him on 30 October 2008, whereas the present application was introduced on 2 June 2009. Accordingly, this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
16. As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the authorities’ failure to give him water, the Court notes that the applicant did not appeal against the non-prosecution decision issued by the public prosecutor. It had previously held that an appeal against decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute constituted in principle an effective and accessible remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (Pad and others v. Turkey, (dec.), no. 60167/00, 28 June 2007). Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2018.
Hasan BakırcıLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy