SECOND SECTION
Application no. 37920/11
Ana TANASA against Turkey
lodged on 29 March 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ana Tanasa, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul. She is represented before the Court by Ms S. Yılmaz and Mr A. Yılmaz, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant has been living in Turkey since 1992. On 26 May 2004 she married a Turkish citizen, and was subsequently granted a residence permit in Turkey. The applicant makes jewellery to be sold by a shop in Istanbul.
In 2009 the Istanbul governor’s office decided to annul the applicant’s residence permit and to deport her on 7 December 2012, on the ground that she had concluded a fake marriage in order to obtain a residence permit.
The applicant instituted proceedings against the decision of the Istanbul governor’s office.
On 29 September 2010 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Istanbul governor’s office.
Meanwhile, on 24 September 2010 when the applicant was delivering some jewellery she had made to the shop, police officers arrested her and took her into custody on the grounds that she did not have a valid visa and that she was working illegally. Although the applicant stated that she had a valid residence permit, she was taken to the Aksaray police station in Istanbul, where she was detained for five days.
On 29 September 2010 the applicant was taken to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre attached to the Istanbul Police Department with a view to her deportation. The applicant was detained there until 5 October 2010.
On 5 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer submitted the judgment of the Istanbul Administrative Court to the police, who subsequently released the applicant.
On 29 September 2010 the Administrative Court revoked its decision.
According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was detained in poor conditions at the Aksaray police station. In particular, she had no access to fresh air, natural light or to any social activity.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that her detention between 24 September and 5 October 2010 had no legal basis in domestic law.
She further contends under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that she was not informed of the reasons for her detention.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that she was not brought before a judge following her apprehension by the police.
The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in Turkish law whereby she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention.
She further complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that she did not have a remedy whereby she could claim compensation for her unlawful detention.
Lastly, the applicant alleges under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in domestic law whereby she could complain about the conditions of detention at the Aksaray police station.
QUESTIONS
1. 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?
2. Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for her detention as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal a remedy by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her deprivation of liberty with a view to her deportation, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for her detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
In response to questions no. 3 and 4, the Government are invited to submit judicial decisions in response to detainees’ complaints regarding their detention in comparable situations.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy