SECOND SECTION

Application no . 40072/11 Rozakhon KHASANOVA against Turkey lodged on 29 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Rozakhon Khasanova , is an U zbekistan national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Tas h kent. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Y ı lmaz and Ms S. Y ı lmaz , lawyers practising in I stanbul .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant had been residing in Turkey since 2005. On 13 October 2005 she married a Turkish citizen.

On 31 May 2010 she was arrested by the police on suspicion that her identity card might not be authentic. She was interrogated at the Büyükçekmece police headquarters and a ‘ visa violation ’ procedure was initiated.

On 2 June 2010 the applicant was sent to the Kumkap ı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre in order to be deported.

The applicant was detained in this facility until 30 December 2010, nearly seven months, allegedly in poor, unhygienic and unhealthy living conditions.

On 15 December 2010 the applicant ’ s lawyer applied to the Foreigners ’ Department of the police and asked to be provided with a copy of the applicant ’ s file in order to initiate administrative proceedings and to request a stay of execution of the deportation order. The lawyer was only given a copy of the applicant ’ s marriage certificate and minutes of her interrogation at the Büyükçekmece police headquarters. Despite the fact that her lawyer requested the documents indicating the administrative procedure to be applied to the applicant in particular, he was not provided with any other document.

On 22 December 2010 the applicant ’ s lawyer made the same request from the Foreigners Department along with a request for the return of money in the amount of 550 TL (approximately EUR 280) which belonged to the applicant and which had been confiscated when she was detained.

The applicant ’ s lawyer brought an administrative case before the Istanbul Administrative Court and requested a stay of execution of the deportation order issued in respect of the applicant, although he was aware of the fact that he was not in possession of documents sufficient to establish an arguable claim,

On 30 December 2010 the Administrative Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds as the petition submitted to the court did not contain the issue number and the date of the administrative orders for the applicant ’ s detention. This decision was served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 13 January 2011.

On 30 December 2010 on the same date as the date of the decision of the administrative court, the applicant was deported to Uzbekistan and she was banned from re-entering Turkey for five years.

On 17 January 2011 the applicant ’ s lawyer filed another administrative case along with a request for a stay of execution.

On 5 May 2011 the administrative court dismissed the request for a stay of execution. The applicant appealed against the dismissal before the Regional Administrative Court and the proceedings were still pending at the time of introduction of the application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention , in particular about lack of outdoor exercise, overcrowding and related poor conditions of hygiene in the Kumkapı Removal Centre.

The applicant alleges under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that her detention was unlawful.

The applicant further contends under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that she was not informed of the reasons for her detention nor was she notified of any decision taken in her case.

The applicant alleges under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that she was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised to exercise judicial power.

The applicant maintains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that she was not able to challenge the lawfulness of her detention.

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

The 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.

She further contends that her detention in the removal centre for nearly seven months violated her right to respect for her family life protected under Article 8 of the Convention.

The applicant finally claims under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her money which had been confiscated when she was arrested was not returned by the police despite her frequent requests.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

The Government are invited to submit information and supporting documents on the conditions at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre, in particular the capacity of the rooms and the number of occupants between 2 June 2010 and 30 December 2010, the opportunities for fresh air, dail y exercise and hygiene conditions.

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an e ffective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 3 of the Con vention, 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 her detention as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicant have at her disposal a remedy by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her deprivation of liberty with a view to her deportation, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

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

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

7. Did the police confiscate and fail to return TRL 550 which belonged to the applicant, as alleged? If so, has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on that account?