SECOND SECTION

Application no. 47146/11 T . and A . against Turkey lodged on 11 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms S . T . and Mr K . A . , are British nationals, who were born in 1966 and 1996 respectively and live in Sheffield in the United Kingdom. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Yılmaz and Ms S. Yılmaz, lawyers practising in Istanbul .

The first applicant is a lecturer at the University of Sheffield . The second applicant is the nephew of the first applicant ’ s husband.

The circumstances of the case

1. The applicants ’ arrest

On 8 November 2010 the applicants arrived in Turkey. They were planning to fly to Manchester (the United Kingdom ) on the next day.

On 9 November 2010 they arrived at the entrance of the plane flying to Manchester . They were however not allowed to board the plane by the airport security. The authorities alleged that the photo of the second applicant did not resemble him and could belong to someone else. Both applicants were arrested at 11 a.m. The private security officers of the airport transferred them to the Airport Passport Control Department.

At 4 p.m., on the same day, the prosecutor on duty was asked on the phone for his further instructions on the matter. The prosecutor instructed that the photos and the statements of the applicants be taken, their fingerprints be examined and the passport in question be seized for an examination of its authenticity.

2. The second applicant ’ s detention

The second applicant was detained at the Ataturk Airport police station until 10.50 p.m on 9 November 2010. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Bakırköy Juvenile Department of Police and then sent to the Criminal Police Laboratory.

On 10 November 2010 his passport was confiscated by the Bakırköy Magistrates ’ Court and the applicant was taken to the Bakırköy public prosecutor ’ s office. Due to lack of agreement among the prosecutors regarding his legal status, he could not give statements that day.

On 11 November 2010 the second applicant was once again brought before the prosecutor. His passport was given back to him as its authenticity had been proved. At 5.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was handed over to B.M., the first applicant ’ s husband. The applicant was detained for two days, six hours and thirty minutes in total.

3. The first applicant ’ s detention

Subsequent to her arrest at the airport on 9 November 2010, in compliance with the instructions of the prosecutor, the first applicant ’ s photo and fingerprint samples were taken and her statements were taken in the presence of an interpreter. In her statements, the applicant maintained that the second applicant was a relative of her husband and that his mother was a British citizen. She denied the veracity of the charge of being accomplice to the crime of illegal passage by means of a fraudulent passport. After the authenticity of the second applicant ’ s passport was confirmed, despite her lawyer ’ s request for her either immediate release or be brought before the prosecutor, the applicant continued to be kept in police custody without any prosecutorial or judicial order. The prosecutor on duty was informed of the situation. The prosecutor replied the applicant that she was not detained upon his instructions and that she was entitled to file a complaint.

On 12 November 2010 the applicant filed criminal complaint with the Bakırköy public prosecutor ’ s office. This complaint was dismissed by the prosecutor. The applicant ’ s subsequent objection to the public prosecutor ’ s decision was also rejected by a decision of the Istanbul Assize Court . In the course of these proceedings, the applicant continued to be detained at the detention facility of the airport for seventy seven hours along with approximately twenty other persons, in a room of fifteen square metres which lacked fresh air due to inadequate ventilation and in unhygienic circumstances.

At 4.10 p.m. on the same day the applicant was transferred to Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre. She was kept in detention at this centre for twenty nine hours.

At 9.20 p.m. on 13 November 2010 the first applicant was deported after four days and ten hours of detention.

COMPLAINTS

The first applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport detention facilities and at the Istanbul Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre.

Both applicants allege under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their detention was unlawful.

The applicants further contend under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that they were not informed of the reasons for their detention, nor were they notified of any decision taken in their respect.

The applicants complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that they were not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised to exercise judicial power.

The applicants maintain under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that they were not able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

The applicants complain under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that t hey could not claim compensation for the aforementioned violations of Article 5.

The first applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, that she did not have an effective remedy in respect of her complaints regarding the conditions of her detention.

The first applicant finally complains under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, about her detention and deportation from Turkey .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is there a domestic remedy under Turkish law whereby the first applicant could have complained about the conditions of detention at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport Police Station? If so, did the first applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit decisions by the administrative and judicial authorities in response to complaints regarding conditions of detention by detainees in comparable situations.

2. Were the conditions of the first applicant ’ s detention at the detention facilities of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit information and supporting documents on the conditions at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport detention facilities , in particular the capacity of the rooms and the number of occupants between 9 October 2010 and 12 October 2010 the opportunities for fresh air and dail y exercise, and the hygiene conditions.

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

4. Did the applicants ’ detention comply wit h the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

5. Were the applicants informed promptly of the reasons for their detention as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

6. Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, taking into account the limited length of their detention ?

The Government are requested to submit judicial decisions in response to requests for release by detainees in comparable situations.

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