Published on 4 December 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 37188/19
Dilnoza QOBILOVA and Others
against Türkiye
lodged on 28 June 2019
communicated on 13 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application mainly concerns the lawfulness and the material conditions of the administrative detention of the applicants, who are Uzbek nationals, pending the proceedings for their deportation. The first applicant is the mother of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants, who were all minors at the material time.
The applicants entered Türkiye in 2015 via regular means. Subsequent to their entry into Türkiye, they were initially granted humanitarian residence permits.
On 4 February 2017 the applicants were taken into police custody together with the first applicant’s husband (and the father of the remaining applicants) at their place of residence. They were all transferred to the Juvenile Department of the Pendik Security Directorate (Pendik Emniyet Müdürlüğü ‑ Çocuk Büro Amirliği). Subsequently, on 9 February 2017 the applicants were placed in the Selimpaşa Foreigners’ Removal Centre ‑‑ whereas their husband/father was transferred to a removal centre in İzmir. On 10 February 2017 decisions were taken for the first applicant’s deportation from Türkiye and her placement under administrative detention. The minor applicants were placed in detention together with their mother (the first applicant).
Following their release from detention on 25 April 2017, the first applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court to complain, inter alia, about the (i) material conditions of their detention; (ii) the alleged unlawfulness of their detention; and (iii) the absence of any effective remedies to provide redress in respect of those complaints. In a summary judgment, the Constitutional Court decided on 24 December 2018 that the applicants’ complaints did not meet the admissibility criteria.
According to the latest information in the case file, the applicants voluntarily returned to Uzbekistan in 2018, where they continue to reside.
Relying on Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the material conditions and unlawfulness of their detention as well as the absence of any effective domestic remedies to raise those complaints. They also argue that their administrative detention had been in violation of Article 5 §§ 2, 4 and 5. They finally complain that the disruption of their family unity on account of the separation from their husband/father and their prolonged detention despite the presence of young children in their family amounted to violation of their rights under Article 8.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants exhausted all effective remedies in relation to their complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. (a) Were the conditions of the applicants’ detention at the Selimpaşa Foreigners’ Removal Centre compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, G.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, §§ 114-17, 17 October 2019)?
(b) Having particular regard to the fact that the Constitutional Court provided no explanation in declaring their individual applications inadmissible, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, G.B. and Others v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 118-138, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 5386/10, § 91, 24 March 2022))? The Government are invited to respond to the claim that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine the applicants’ individual application had been protracted.
3. Did the applicants’ initial detention at the Juvenile Department of the Pendik Security Directorate between 4 and 9 February 2016, and subsequently at the Selimpaşa Foreigners’ Removal Centre comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑III, and Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 96, ECHR 2006-XI, and the cases cited therein)?
4. Were the applicants informed promptly of the reasons for their detention as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention (see, for example, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 115, 15 December 2016)?
5. Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, for example, A.M. v. France, no. 56324/13, §§ 40-41, 12 July 2016)? The Government are invited to respond to the claims that the Constitutional Court provided no explanation in declaring their individual applications inadmissible and that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine the applicants’ individual application had been protracted.
6. Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
7. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life contrary to Article 8, in view of their allegation that their family unity was disrupted on account of the separation from their husband/father and the prolonged nature of their detention, given in particular the young age of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants?
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
Application no. 37188/19
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
1.
Dilnoza QOBILOVA
1983
Uzbekistan
2.
Mubinakhon OBIDJONOVA
2010
Uzbekistan
3.
Muslimakhon OBIDJONOVA
2006
Uzbekistan
4.
Solikha OBIDJONOVA
2003
Uzbekistan
5.
Muhammed SOLTANI
2015
Uzbekistan
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy