36916/19

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF M.A. v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 36916/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 November 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of M.A. v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Gilberto Felici,  Diana Sârcu, judges, and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 36916/19) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 11 July 2019 by a Syrian national, M.A. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1989 and was represented by Mr A. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul; the decision to give notice of the application to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent; the decision not to disclose the applicant’s name; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 6 November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The applicant is a Syrian national who entered Türkiye in 2015 and was subsequently taken into custody in connection with a criminal investigation into the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria/al-Sham (ISIS – also known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)). The application mainly concerns alleged breaches of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5, Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention on account of his detention in the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre (“the Kumkapı Removal Centre”) and the Gaziantep Foreigners’ Removal Centre (“the Gaziantep Removal Centre”) and the conditions of detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre pending expulsion proceedings. Initial Arrest and Criminal Proceedings 2.  On 13 January 2016 the applicant was taken into custody at his residence on suspicion of affiliation with ISIS and his alleged contact with the individual responsible for the suicide attack that occurred in Sultanahmet, Istanbul, on 12 January 2016. The following day, the Istanbul Fifth Magistrates’ Court ordered his release subject to a prohibition on his leaving the country. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated before the Istanbul Assize Court. Deportation order and Initial detention 3.  On 19 January 2016 the Istanbul Governor’s Office issued a deportation order against the applicant under section 54(1)(d) of Law no. 6458, as his presence was considered to constitute a threat to public order. It also ordered his administrative detention pending deportation and the applicant was transferred to the Kumkapı Removal Centre in Istanbul that same day. The applicant brought an action for the annulment of the deportation order before the Istanbul Administrative Court, which dismissed the action on 31 October 2016. ENSUING DETENTION AND APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE 4.  The applicant submitted three successive applications for release to the Istanbul Second Magistrates’ Court on 15 February, 3 March and 2 May 2016; the first two of these were dismissed. Subsequently, on 11 May 2016 he was transferred to the Gaziantep Removal Centre. As regards his third application, the Istanbul Second Magistrates’ Court, in a decision dated 18 August 2016, held that there was no need to give a ruling (karar verilmesine yer olmadığına), citing the applicant’s release as the reason. 5.  On 18 May 2016 the Gaziantep Governor’s Office extended the applicant’s administrative detention for six months, citing pending arrangements for his removal. 6.  On 15 June 2016 the applicant lodged an application for release with the Gaziantep Magistrates’ Court, which the court dismissed on 29 June 2016. 7.  On 24 August 2016 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, along with a request for an interim measure, alleging inadequate detention conditions and restrictions on contact rights in the removal centres, particularly in Gaziantep. He further contested the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of his detention, the lack of prompt notification of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty, and the lack of a meaningful review of his release requests. On 6 September 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed his request for an interim measure. 8.  On 26 September the applicant lodged a second application for release with the Gaziantep Magistrates’ Court, which the court dismissed on 12 October 2016. 9.  On 17 October 2016 the applicant submitted a third application for release to the same court. On 21 October 2016, the court referred to its decision of 12 October 2016 and held that there was no need to rule on the request, as the application did not warrant a re-examination, absent any new evidence. 10.  On 17 January 2017 the applicant submitted a fourth application for release with the Gaziantep Magistrates’ Court, which, once again referring to its previous dismissal, on 18 January 2017 held that there was no need to rule on the request. On 30 March 2017 the applicant informed the Constitutional Court of that decision in support of his pending application and previous complaints. Subsequent Developments and Legal Proceedings 11.  On 12 January 2017 the applicant was deported to Sudan. 12.  On 31 January 2018 the Assize Court acquitted the applicant in the criminal proceedings. 13.  In its summary judgment of 7 January 2019 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application inadmissible on grounds that the admissibility criteria had not been met. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 13, ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION AT THE GAZİANTEP FOREIGNERS’ REMOVAL CENTREAdmissibility 14.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies on the grounds that he had failed to bring an action in the administrative courts seeking full remedy (tam yargı davası), which in theory could have provided an effective remedy. 15.  The applicant contested the Government’s submissions, asserting that there had been a lack of effective domestic remedies to address his grievances concerning the detention conditions. He emphasised his ongoing detention at the time of his application to the Constitutional Court, arguing that a purely compensatory remedy could not have constituted adequate redress for the alleged suffering caused by the allegedly appalling detention conditions. 16.  The relevant principles concerning effective remedies which are required to be pursued in respect of complaints under Article 3 concerning the conditions of detention have been summarised in G.B. and Others v. Turkey (no. 4633/15, § 129, 17 October 2019, and the case-law cited therein). 17.  The Court notes that the applicant was detained in the Gaziantep Removal Centre between 11 May 2016 and 12 January 2017 (see paragraphs 4-11 above) and that he lodged his application with the Constitutional Court in respect of his complaint on 24 August 2016 – that is, while he was being held in administrative detention there. However, the Constitutional Court did not deliver its decision on the matter until nearly two and a half years later, on 7 January 2019. Therefore, the Court cannot but find that the remedy of lodging an individual application with the Constitutional Court did not provide a preventive remedy capable of providing immediate relief from the unacceptable conditions of detention (see Kunshugarov v. Türkiye, nos. 60811/15 and 54512/17, §§ 136-41, 14 January 2025, and the case-law cited therein). Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s argument that the available domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 18.  The Court concludes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsArticle 3 of the Convention 19.  The applicant contended that his detention in the Gaziantep Removal Centre had subjected him to inhuman conditions for a prolonged period. In particular, he averred that he had been denied any access to outdoor exercise throughout the entire duration of his detention. Furthermore, he submitted that his accommodation had been overcrowded, hygiene standards had been manifestly inadequate and food rations had been so insufficient that he had been compelled to rely on snacks purchased at the facility’s commissary for sustenance. He further submitted that the Government, in their observations, had provided only theoretical information, devoid of the specific and relevant details concerning the detention conditions necessary for a proper assessment of his situation. Lastly, he asserted that the conditions of the above-mentioned centre were sufficiently inadequate so as to necessitate its eventual closure. 20.  The Government contested those claims, asserting that detainees had been afforded daily access to fresh air and physical exercise. Furthermore, the Government argued that adequate meals had been provided, with due consideration given to dietary requirements, hygiene kits had regularly been distributed and psychosocial services had been available to detainees. They further submitted that the applicant had been accommodated in a room measuring 19.5 sq. m, which he had shared with five other persons. 21.  The Court reiterates that in cases which concern conditions of detention, applicants are expected in principle to submit detailed and consistent accounts of the facts complained of and to provide, as far as possible, some evidence in support of their complaints. The Court, however, also notes that in practice it may be very difficult for a detainee to collect evidence concerning the material conditions of his or her detention and it may thus be permissible, under certain circumstances, to shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the Government in question, especially where the Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. In such circumstances, a failure on the part of a Government to submit the relevant information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well‑foundedness of the applicant’s allegations (see G.B. and Others v. Turkey, cited above, § 115, and the cases cited therein). 22.  The Court observes that the Government have not furnished sufficient documentary evidence to refute the applicant’s allegations concerning the conditions at the Gaziantep Removal Centre. This includes, but is not limited to, copies of the logs detailing the number of detainees held therein at the relevant time, a schematic representation of the detention facility and comprehensive information pertaining to the hygiene standards and the provisions for sustenance at the centre. The sole concrete information provided regarding the applicant’s personal circumstances is that he was detained in a room affording less than 3.5 sq. m of personal space per detainee (compare Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 136-141, 20 October 2016). This appears to be proximate to the minimum standard required under Article 3 of the Convention and the Government have not demonstrated the existence of other pertinent factors capable of adequately compensating for the limited allocation of personal space. The Government have similarly failed to provide satisfactory information as to whether the applicant was afforded sufficient time for outdoor exercise on a daily basis. 23.  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the material conditions in which the applicant was detained at the Gaziantep Removal Centre. Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention 24.  The Court reiterates its findings under paragraphs 16-17 above and its settled case-law in G.B. and Others v. Turkey (cited above, §§ 125-30). 25.  The Court observes that on 24 August 2016 the applicant lodged his complaint with the Constitutional Court and sought immediate redress for the purportedly unacceptable conditions of his detention. On 6 September 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed his request for an interim measure. However, the applicant remained in detention for a further four months until his deportation. The Constitutional Court ultimately delivered its decision on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s case after a period of approximately two and a half years. While the Court acknowledges that the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the applicant’s request for interim measures does not, in itself, negate the general effectiveness of the remedy before that court, the remedial efficacy of the individual application mechanism in the specific circumstances of the present case was undermined by the confluence of the applicant’s continued detention for a substantial duration and the protracted period taken by the Constitutional Court to deliver its decision. Accordingly, in the applicant’s situation, a purely compensatory remedy could not have provided him with an effective remedy in respect of his specific complaints under Article 3 (see G.B. and Others v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 131-37). 26.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the individual-application mechanism before the Constitutional Court did not prove effective in respect of the applicant’s complaints regarding the material conditions of detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre in the particular circumstances of the present case. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPLICANT’S DETENTION AT THE KUMKAPI AND GAZİANTEP FOREIGNERS’ REMOVAL CENTRES 27.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 that his detention pending removal had been unlawful. He further complained under Article 5 § 2 that he had not been duly informed of the reasons for his being deprived of his liberty. He submitted, relying on Article 5 § 4, that he had not had any effective remedies by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention during this period. Lastly, he maintained, under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, that he had no right to compensation under domestic law for the violation of his rights under Article 5. Admissibility 28.  The Court, finding that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds, declares them admissible. MeritsArticle 5 § 1 of the Convention 29.  The applicant submitted that his deprivation of liberty had not been lawful and its duration had been excessive. He asserted that the detention had been arbitrary because the prohibition on leaving the country, issued by the Istanbul Fifth Magistrates’ Court (see paragraph 2 above), had effectively prevented his removal. 30.  The Government contested those claims. 31.  The general principles concerning the lawfulness of detention pending deportation or extradition under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention are set out in M.C. v. Türkiye (no. 31592/18, §§ 46-53, 4 June 2024, and the cases cited therein) and G.B. and Others v. Turkey (cited above, § 44). The Court also reiterates that its task is not to assess whether the length of the deportation proceedings in question was reasonable overall, but to determine – irrespective of the overall length of the proceedings – whether the length of the detention exceeded what was reasonably necessary for the purpose pursued (see Khokhlov v. Cyprus, no. 53114/20, § 89, 13 June 2023). 32.  The applicant was apprehended by law enforcement authorities in the context of a security operation targeting ISIS and was suspected of maintaining secondary contact with the perpetrator of the terrorist attack of 12 January 2016. Consequently, the Istanbul Governor’s Office ordered his deportation for posing a threat to public order under Law no. 6458 and ordered his administrative detention pending the deportation proceedings. The Court observes that the applicant’s request for the annulment of the deportation order was examined by the Istanbul First Administrative Court and was eventually dismissed. The applicant also challenged his administrative detention on at least five occasions before the Istanbul and Gaziantep Magistrates’ Courts; however, all those applications were unsuccessful, primarily on the basis that his removal arrangements were pending. The Court reiterates that the suspension of a deportation order, whether as a result of a legal challenge before domestic courts or the implementation of an interim measure indicated by the Court, does not, in itself, determine whether a deprivation of liberty is compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see K.F. v. Cyprus, no. 41858/10, § 134, 21 July 2015), provided that the authorities still envisage expulsion at a later stage. In the present case, the applicant was ultimately removed to Sudan prior to the expiry of the maximum time allowed under domestic law for detention pending deportation. 33.  Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Court finds no grounds to call into question the conclusions of the domestic courts. On the basis of the material before it, the Court is satisfied that the applicant’s detention had a lawful basis and was in accordance with domestic law, and that steps were being taken for his removal, notwithstanding the temporary suspension of those proceedings. Consequently, the Court sees no indication of bad faith on the part of the authorities or a lack of the requisite diligence in pursuing the deportation proceedings, as required by Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus, nos. 41903/10 and 41911/10, §§ 182-91, 21 July 2015). 34.  With respect to the conditions of detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre, having already found a violation of Article 3 (see paragraphs 23 and 26 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to further examine the conditions of detention in the context of Article 5 § 1 (f) (see, for a comparable approach, Horshill v. Greece, no. 70427/11, § 65, 1 August 2013; R.T. v. Greece, no. 5124/11, § 85, 11 February 2016; and Ha.A. v. Greece, no. 58387/11, § 41, 21 April 2016). 35.  The Court, therefore, concludes that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. Article 5 § 2 of the Convention 36.  On an examination of the case file, the Court notes that statements were taken from the applicant during the search of his residence and his subsequent police custody on criminal charges; however, following his release by the Istanbul Fifth Magistrates’ Court on 14 January 2016 no document or information was provided to him setting out the reasons for his subsequent administrative detention. Although the Government submitted that the applicant had promptly been informed of the reasons for his detention and the available domestic remedies to challenge its lawfulness, the sole document adduced in this connection was an untranslated document in Arabic, the contents of which the Court is unable to assess and which is dated 18 May 2016, a date significantly subsequent to the applicant’s initial placement in administrative detention (compare Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, §§ 52-55, 13 July 2010). In the light of the circumstances above and the absence of any other document in the case file to show that the applicant was formally notified of the grounds for his detention, the Court is led to the conclusion that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 37.   The applicant contended that he had not had any effective remedies by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention during the period in question. Notwithstanding multiple appeals lodged before the magistrates’ courts and ultimately the Constitutional Court, the domestic courts had delivered summary decisions with stereotypical reasoning. The applicant further emphasised that on several instances, the magistrates’ courts had abstained from substantively ruling on his requests for release, confining themselves to referencing prior adjudications and determining that no discrete decision was warranted. 38.  The relevant principles regarding Article 5 § 4 have been summarised in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy ([GC], no. 16483/12, § 131, 15 December 2016, with further references). 39.  The Court observes that the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his detention on no fewer than five occasions before the Istanbul and Gaziantep Magistrates’ Courts. While these challenges ultimately proved unsuccessful, the Court notes that the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court took in excess of three months to examine the applicant’s initial request. That court ultimately declined to rule on the merits, citing the applicant’s purported release, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant remained deprived of his liberty at the relevant time (see paragraph 4 above). Similarly, the Gaziantep Magistrates’ Court declined to rule on the applicant’s third and fourth applications for release. It did not substantively examine the applicant’s requests, but merely referred to its previous rejections, despite the applicant’s continued deprivation of liberty for a significant period, without considering whether any action was still being taken with a view to deportation (see paragraphs 9-10 above). 40.  Furthermore, in its summary inadmissibility decision, delivered following the applicant’s deportation and consequent termination of his detention, the Constitutional Court did not undertake a substantive examination of his complaint that the magistrates’ courts had failed to review the lawfulness of his detention, despite the fact that he had been in detention at the time of his application (compare Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 115, 23 July 2013, and the cases cited therein). 41.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court cannot but conclude that in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant was unable to avail himself of a remedy by which he could obtain a decision on the lawfulness of his detention in a speedy and effective manner (compare G.B. and Others v. Turkey, cited above, § 165). 42.  There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Article 5 § 5 of the Convention 43.  Relying on Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that he had had no right to compensation under domestic law in respect of the violation of his rights under Article 5. 44.  In view of its findings above of a violation of Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Convention, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the applicant’s remaining complaints under that provision. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 13 45.  The applicant complained that his detention in inappropriate conditions and the restrictions imposed on his telephone rights and family visits at the Gaziantep Removal Centre had amounted to a violation of his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 13 that he had had no effective remedies in respect of those complaints. 46.  The Government contested those claims, arguing that the applicant had not provided any concrete information or document indicating the alleged restrictions and had therefore failed to substantiate his allegations. They further argued that the applicant had been able to meet with his lawyer. 47.  From the aspect of inadequate conditions of detention and their relevance to the applicant’s complaints under Article 8, having regard to its findings under Article 3, Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 and Article 13 above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 8, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (see, for a similar approach, G.B. and Others v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 191-92). 48.  The Court observes that the applicant has failed to sufficiently substantiate his complaints under Article 8 concerning the alleged denial of family visits and the purported restrictions on telephone rights during his detention. The applicant has not adduced any evidence demonstrating that requests for such visits or telephone calls were duly made, nor has he provided evidence that the removal centre’s administration prohibited him from receiving such visits or making such calls (see, mutatis mutandis, Baştovoi v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 36125/14, § 19, 5 July 2016). In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded, and is therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION Damage 49.  The applicant did not claim any compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. He claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 50.  The Government contested that claim. 51.  In view of the violations found in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 3, Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention, and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 6,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. Costs and expenses 52.  The applicant also claimed EUR 6,930 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. He submitted a contract signed with his lawyer and an itemised timesheet stating the hours worked by him, amounting to fifty-seven hours at an hourly rate of EUR 100. 53.  The Government contended that the applicant had failed to submit adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged costs and expenses. 54.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaints Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 in so far as it relates to the detention conditions at the Gaziantep Removal Centre and the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention, the alleged lack of information on the reasons for detention, and the alleged lack of a remedy whereby he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention admissible; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 on account of the lack of effective remedies to lodge a complaint about the conditions of detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre; Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)  EUR 6,500 (six thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii)  EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 November 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Sophie Piquet María Elósegui  Acting Deputy Registrar President