Published on 3 August 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 4200/26
Ercan YILDIZ
against Türkiye
lodged on 19 December 2025
communicated on 29 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the material conditions of the applicant’s detention. Specifically, it concerns the allegation that the prison administration failed to adequately address excessive indoor temperatures during the summer months in a penitentiary in Adana, a province in southern Türkiye known for extremely high heat.
The applicant submits that the concrete and metal structure of the prison buildings caused temperatures in the wards to reach 50oC during the summer period. He alleges that detainees were exposed to extreme heat for prolonged periods and that their ability to shower was restricted due to a daily water quota of 200 litres.
He further alleges that detainees did not have access to the outdoor yards (ventilation areas) during the cooler hours of the day, such as early morning and late afternoon. According to the applicant, access was limited to the hottest periods, thereby preventing detainees from benefiting from cooler air.
The applicant maintains that these conditions adversely affected his physical health and mental well-being, causing excessive sweating, skin problems, severe fatigue, palpitations, headaches, gastrointestinal disorders, and diarrhoea, which are recorded in the prison’s infirmary records.
It appears from the case file that, in an attempt to alleviate these conditions, the applicant and his cellmates purchased a fan from the prison canteen; however, they were required to pay the associated electricity costs themselves, despite having no income.
Together with another detainee, the applicant submitted requests to the prison administration seeking (i) that the electricity costs of the fan be covered by the administration, (ii) that the daily water quota be lifted, and (iii) that detainees be granted access to the outdoor yards (ventilation areas) during the cooler hours of the morning and late afternoon. These requests were rejected by the prison administration. The applicant’s subsequent objections were dismissed by the Adana Enforcement Judge and, on appeal, by the Adana 1st Assize Court. On 23 October 2025, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s case inadmissible, finding his Article 3 complaint manifestly ill‑founded using a summary formula.
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the prison administration’s failure to take adequate measures against excessive heat and inadequate temperature control, taken together with the lack of adequate ventilation and limited access to water, subjected him to conditions incompatible with respect for human dignity and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the alleged exposure to excessive heat during the summer months, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 155 and 158, 10 January 2012, and Murši v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 140, 20 October 2016)?
The Government are invited to submit information and documents concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention, in particular in relation to the alleged exposure to excessive heat during the summer period. This information should include, in particular, the following:
- the applicant’s complete infirmary records for the period covered by the complaint;
- information concerning the availability and practical use of shower facilities during the relevant period, including any limitations, schedules or restrictions in force, as well as any internal instructions, circulars or regulations governing the application of the daily water quota during that period;
- information and documentary evidence concerning the use of electrical appliances by detainees for cooling purposes, including the rules governing the purchase and use of fans; any obligation imposed on detainees to bear the cost of electricity consumption; the method of calculation of such costs and the average amounts charged to detainees; and the availability of any exemptions or reductions for detainees without income;
- information regarding the applicant’s income during the relevant period; and
- information concerning the hours and conditions of access to the outdoor yards (ventilation areas), and as to whether detainees were able to access them during the cooler periods of the day, such as early morning and late afternoon.
2. What measures, if any, were taken by the Government to mitigate the alleged effects of extreme heat on the applicant during his detention in the relevant period (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 4, ECHR 2000‑XI)?