SECOND SECTION
Application no. 72754/11
Uktam MUSAEV
against Turkey
lodged on 28 October 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Uktam Musaev, is an Uzbek national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Aksaray. 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.
On 2 April 2011 the applicant, who had been living in Turkey since 2008, was taken into custody within the context of a criminal investigation concerning a third person. He was placed in the Yedikule Security Directorate.
On 4 April 2011 his statements as a witness were taken for the said investigation. On the same day, he was brought back to the Security Directorate for having overstayed his visa.
On 5 April 2011 the applicant was transferred to the Fatih police headquarters, where he was held for five days until he was sent to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre with a view to being deported on 10 April 2011.
During his stay at the Kumkapı Admission and Accommodation Centre, on 12 April 2011 he filed an application for refugee status.
Later on, on 27 April 2011 he claimed asylum from the Ministry of Interior.
On 29 April 2011, upon a decision of the Ministry of Interior to that effect, the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in Aksaray as an asylum seeker. He was released from the Admission and Accommodation Centre on the same day.
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 Yedikule Security Directorate, the Fatih police headquarters and the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre. He argues in this respect that the conditions in these places amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in that they did not comply with hygiene standards and lacked proper ventilation. He indicates that he feared being deported to Uzbekistan during his time at the Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre, where up to forty five detainees were held in rooms of 35 m² and the lack of hygiene resulted in the spread of contagious diseases.
Relying upon Article 5 § 1 and 2 of the Convention, the applicant maintains that he was held in detention for a total period of twenty seven days without there being any legal basis and that he was not informed of the reasons for 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 Kumkapı Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre 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.
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?
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