Published on 4 December 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 19111/22
M.D. and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 19 April 2022
communicated on 15 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicants’ stay at the transit zone, and subsequently the inadmissible passenger unit, of Istanbul Airport for an extended period of time.
The applicants are three Yemeni citizens who fled Yemen – due to the civil conflict and the risk of forced recruitment – and arrived at Istanbul Airport on 24 June 2021. They were not admitted to Türkiye and had to stay in the transit zone until 27 July 2021, until their transfer to the inadmissible passenger unit of the airport. On the same date, they applied for international protection. The applicants stayed at the inadmissible passenger unit in allegedly substandard conditions until their departure to Lebanon on 17 August (the second applicant), 19 August (the first applicant) and 23 August 2022 (the third applicant), respectively.
The applicants complain under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention about the allegedly poor material conditions of their stay in the airport transit zone and the inadmissible passenger unit, as well as the alleged unlawfulness of their detention, and the absence of any effective remedies in relation to those complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. (a) Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the allegedly poor material conditions of the applicants’ stay at Istanbul airport for a period of approximately 14 months (see Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 61411/15 and 3 others, §§ 181-97, 21 November 2019; and Thiam v. Italy (dec.), no. 21329/16, §§ 32-41, 30 August 2022)?
(b) Were the applicants provided with adequate and timely access to medical assistance in accordance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, having particular regard to the claims of the first applicant in this respect?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in relation to their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see T. and A. v. Turkey, no. 47146/11, §§ 86‑87, 21 October 2014, and the cases cited therein)?
3. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, did their deprivation of liberty amount to a violation of that provision and, in particular, was there a legal basis for that deprivation of liberty (see Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 210-249, 21 November 2019; Z.A. and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 133-171; Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 68, 24 January 2008; and Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, §§ 37-54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III)?
4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 128-131, 15 December 2016; and G.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, §§ 163-173, 17 October 2019)? What is the applicable law and practice in Türkiye governing the judicial review of the lawfulness and length of the detention of foreigners who are detained in the airport transit zones?
The parties are requested to provide information as to the circumstances under which the applicants left Türkiye.
The Government are further requested to provide the Court with all material documents pertaining to the legal proceedings brought by the applicants in Türkiye.
APPENDIX
List of applications:
Application no. 19111/22
No.
Applicant’s Name
Nationality
1.
M. D.
Yemeni
2.
O. A. A.
Yemeni
3.
A. M.
Yemeni
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy