CASE OF ALIMOV v. TURKEY
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković
4. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Gaziantep. 5. In 2010 the applicant and his family left Uzbekistan to escape the oppression they faced on account of their religious beliefs. After spending some time in Kazakhstan, in 2010 they entered Turkey by legal means. 6. Subsequent to their arrival in Turkey, the applicant and his wife made a request for asylum. The applicant’s wife was granted a residence permit in the city of Gaziantep pending her asylum request, but the applicant was not able to obtain one as he could not pay the requisite fee for the permit. The applicant, therefore, resided illegally in Gaziantep. 7. On 5 April 2011 the applicant and his family travelled from Turkey to Ukraine to seek medical treatment for his wife. The applicant was subjected to a fine of 900 Turkish liras (TRY) by the Turkish border police on account of his illegal residence in Turkey. He was also banned from entering the country for five years. 8. On 4 May 2012 the applicant and his family attempted to re-enter Turkey through Sabiha Gökçen Airport in Istanbul. The applicant, however, was not permitted entry, and he was placed in the detention facility at the airport for “inadmissible passengers” pending his repatriation to Ukraine. 9. On 5 May 2012 the applicant lodged an objection to his repatriation and lodged a new asylum request. 10. On 13 May 2012 the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) requested the offices of the Istanbul and Gaziantep governors to notify the applicant that he would be accommodated at the airport detention facility pending a decision on his asylum request. According to a note dated 21 May 2012 addressed by the Istanbul governor’s office to the Ministry, the applicant was notified as requested. The note did not, however, indicate when the relevant notification had been made. 11. On 30 May 2012 the Ministry rejected the applicant’s asylum request. The applicant was notified of this decision on 31 May 2012. He was also informed on that date that he could lodge an objection to the Ministry’s decision within seventy-two hours, that he would be deported in the event of the dismissal of his objection and that he would continue to be accommodated in the airport detention facility in the meantime. 12. On 1 June 2012 the applicant lodged an objection to the Ministry’s decision. 13. On 10 July 2012 the applicant was transferred from Sabiha Gökçen Airport to the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre in Istanbul (“the Kumkapı Removal Centre”). 14. The applicant was kept in the Kumkapı Removal Centre until 15 August 2012. On that date, he was granted a temporary residence permit pending his asylum request. 15. There is no information in the case file regarding the outcome of the applicant’s asylum request. 16. The applicant claimed that the detention facility at Sabiha Gökçen Airport where he had been kept for sixty-eight days between 4 May and 10 July 2012 had been a room of about 20 square metres and that, while the numbers had fluctuated, the room had accommodated up to fifteen people at times. There had been no furniture in the room suitable for sleeping on, but only five chaises longues, which had been impossible to rest on. The applicant further claimed that throughout his detention, he had not been allowed to leave that room, nor had he had any contact with the outside world, including with a lawyer. He had also been denied any access to natural light and fresh air, as the room in question had had no windows. According to the applicant, the detention facility had been designed for holding inadmissible passengers for short periods and had been unsuitable for long-term detention. All other passengers in his situation had either been released or repatriated after one or two days of detention at most. 17. The applicant claimed that the Kumkapı Removal Centre had been severely overcrowded at the time of his detention. He had had to share a dormitory room of approximately 35 square metres with thirty to forty-five other people, who had been provided with only fifteen bunk beds to sleep on. He had had to spend all his time in that humid and smoke-filled room without being able to engage in any social activities and had not been allowed access to outdoor exercise throughout his detention. The applicant further alleged that the overcrowding of the removal centre had led to hygiene problems. The building had been infested with insects and there had been frequent outbreaks of contagious diseases. The quality and quantity of the food provided had also been fairly poor. 18. The Government claimed that the room in which the applicant had been held at Sabiha Gökçen Airport had measured 53.73 square metres. The room had been equipped with five beds for men, as well as a ventilation system, a television, a toilet and a shower. The room had had a padded sitting area for rest and sleep, and had been cleaned every day. The Government submitted that during the applicant’s stay between 4 May and 10 July 2012, the number of detainees had never exceeded five. They did not, however, submit any documents in support of that submission, such as a list of the detainees kept in the detention facility during the relevant period. Nor did they submit any photographs of the detention facility, despite the Court’s request to that effect. 19. The Government stated that the Kumkapı Removal Centre’s capacity had been reduced from 560 to 300, in line with recommendations made by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”), following its visit in June 2009. Accordingly, the number of detainees during the period of the applicant’s detention had never exceeded 300. They did not, however, submit the registers recording the occupation rates during the period in question. 20. The Government stated that the detainees had been accommodated on three floors at the removal centre: the first two floors had been reserved for male detainees, and the third floor for females. The information provided as to the number and size of the rooms was, however, inconsistent. While the Government claimed in their observations that there had been five dormitory rooms on each floor, measuring 50, 69, 76 and 84 square metres respectively, the information note prepared by the Ministry and appended to their observations indicated that there had been only four rooms on the first floor, measuring 50, 58, 76 and 84 square metres, and five rooms on both the second and third floors, measuring 50, 58, 69, 76 and 84 square metres. The Government stated that they were not able to provide information as to the exact number of people that the applicant had shared a room with, because detainees had been left to make their own choice of rooms. They submitted, however, that there had been fifteen to twenty beds in each room. 21. The Government further submitted that there had been a cafeteria measuring 69 square metres on each floor, where breakfast, lunch and dinner had been served daily. The detainees had had the right to outdoor exercise in suitable weather conditions, as well as the right to engage in sports and watch television. The detainees had had access to medical care in cases of emergency and a doctor had visited the removal centre once a week. As for hygiene standards in the facility, there had been six cleaning staff working full time at the removal centre, and the building had been disinfected at certain times. 22. In support of their claims, the Government submitted, inter alia, photographs of two of the dormitory rooms, both of which appeared well-lit and fairly clean, as well as of the hallway and the cafeteria on one of the floors reserved for male detainees. Although the total number of beds cannot be ascertained from the photos, it can be determined that there were at least twentytwo beds (that is to say eleven bunk beds) in both rooms. It is further observed that there were two rows of bunk beds positioned against the walls in both rooms, leaving a narrow corridor in the middle of the room. While some of the bunks were touching each other, others were separated by big metal lockers. No other furniture, such as tables and chairs, was present in the rooms; there were blankets on the beds in only one of the rooms and the other room had no bedding at all. A television was available on each floor in the cafeteria. Moreover, a metal situp bench and an exercise bike were shown in the photograph of the hallway. No photos of the toilets or the showers were provided. 23. The Government also submitted an outdoor photo of some detainees in the removal centre’s courtyard. There were no men amongst these detainees – only women and children.