SECOND SECTION
Application no. 74535/10
S. A.
against Turkey
lodged on 19 October 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr S.A., is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Sakarya. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). He is represented before the Court by Ms S. N. Yılmaz and Mr A. Yılmaz, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Russian citizen of Chechen origin. He left his country and arrived in Turkey in fear of the ongoing armed conflict in 1993. In Turkey he was granted a residence permit. He claims that he would face extrajudicial killing or imprisonment or death by torture if he were to be deported or extradited to his country of origin.
On 9 May 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police at the Istanbul Ataturk International Airport on suspicion of illegal entry into Turkey with a false passport. He was questioned by a prosecutor and subsequently detained at the airport police facility for six days without any judicial order to that effect. He submits that he was kept in an overcrowded room. The applicant was then taken by the police to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre pending his deportation.
The applicant alleges that at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre he was detained in unhygienic and unhealthy living conditions in overcrowded places.
On 29 September 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a petition with the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office against police officers from the Foreigners’ Department of the Istanbul police headquarters and alleged that he had been unlawfully detained by State officials.
On 30 September and 4 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged petitions with the Ministry of the Interior and the Istanbul governor’s office and requested the applicant’s immediate release, claiming that his detention was unlawful.
On 4 October 2010 he also submitted a petition to the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court containing a request for the applicant’s release and an objection to his detention.
On 13 October 2010 the applicant was released from the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre by the police on the condition that he would submit an application to renew his residence permit.
On 6 December 2010 the Istanbul governor’s office decided not to examine the applicant’s complaint regarding his detention.
On 10 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an objection against this decision. In his petition, the applicant’s lawyer noted, inter alia, that he had requested to be provided with the content of the applicant’s file on 19 October 2010 and that on 8 November 2010 he had been given only a limited number of documents. He submitted that some documents were not provided as they had been classified as “confidential” and that this practice of the police was not prescribed by law.
On 15 March 2011 the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court quashed the decision, holding that the governor’s office had to decide on whether authorisation should be granted for the prosecution of officers at the Kumkapı Centre.
On an unspecified date the Istanbul governor’s office decided not to authorise the prosecution of the police officers. Subsequently, on 13 September 2011 the Istanbul public prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation instigated on the applicant’s petition. In his decision the public prosecutor noted that the applicant had been banned from entering Turkey and that he had been apprehended with a false passport. He further noted that the applicant had not been detained but kept under control pending his deportation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention at the Istanbul International Airport and the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre, in particular about a lack of outdoor exercise, overcrowding and related poor conditions of hygiene.
The applicant alleges under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty at the Istanbul International Airport and subsequently at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre as there was no legal basis in domestic law for his detention.
The applicant further contends, under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention, that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention. Nor was he notified of any decision taken in his case.
He also contends, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that he was not brought before a judge or any other authority authorised by law to decide on his detention.
The applicant maintains under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention that he was unable to challenge the lawfulness of his detention since there was no legal authority which reviews such type of detention.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have a remedy whereby he could claim compensation for his unlawful detention.
The applicant submits under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that officers at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre failed to respect the privacy of his communication with his lawyer and that his lawyer had limited access to his file.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he was not permitted to see his family during his detention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy