Communicated on 25 September 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 18152/11 Ramazan ERKENOV against Turkey lodged on 14 January 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ramazan Erkenov , is a Russian national of Chechen origin, who was born in 1972 and lived in Turkey at the time of the application. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 2000 the applicant left Chechnya as he was being searched for by the Russian authorities. In 2001 he arrived in Turkey. Subsequent to the applicant ’ s departure from his country, criminal proceedings were brought against him before the Cerkessk City Court on the following charges: participation in an armed insurrection and membership of an armed organization, with the purpose of overthrowing the constitutional order and violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, as well as possessing firearms and ammunition. The court subsequently issued a detention order in respect of the applicant in his absence.

On 24 January 2008 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul in the context of an operation against the Al-Qaida in Turkey. The applicant was then taken to Gaziantep. The Gaziantep Magistrate ’ s Court ordered the applicant ’ s detention on remand.

On 28 January 2009 the applicant was released from prison. However, he continued to be detained, as he was transferred to the Gaziantep Foreigners ’ Removal Centre.

On an unspecified date the Russian authorities requested the extradition of the applicant. On 3 April 2009 the Gaziantep Assize Court dismissed the Russian authorities ’ request for extradition, holding that the nature of the offence in question was political and that according to international and national laws, alleged perpetrators of such offences could not be extradited.

On 23 October 2009 the applicant applied to the Gaziantep governor ’ s office and requested to be recognised as a refugee and not to be deported.

On 26 April 2010 the applicant was notified that his request to be recognised as a refugee in Turkey had been rejected.

In the meantime, on 8 April 2010, the applicant submitted a petition to the Ministry of the Interior. In his petition, the applicant requested to be released and granted a residence permit.

On 24 July 2010 the applicant was released from the foreigners ’ removal centre . He was also ordered to leave Turkey within fifteen days. The applicant left Turkey within a short time following his release.

As regards the conditions of detention at the Gaziantep Foreigners ’ Removal Centre, t he applicant claims that he was detained in a place which lacked natural light and also fresh air due to inadequate ventilation and in unhygienic circumstances for eighteen months. The applicant also submits that there was no provision for outdoor exercise at the Gaziantep Removal Centre, which meant that he was unable to go outside throughout his detention.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention at the Gaziantep Foreigners ’ Removal Centre.

The applicant alleges under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention at the Gaziantep Foreigners ’ Removal Centre was unlawful.

The applicant further contends under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention at the removal centre .

The applicant maintains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in Turkish domestic law whereby he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

The applicant further contends under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy capable of ensuring his right to compensation.

The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby he could raise his allegations under Article 3 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention at the Gaziantep Foreigners ’ Removal Centre compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant ’ s detention comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his detention as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

6. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?