SECOND SECTION

Application no . 23619/11 Ulugbek KHOLDAROV against Turkey lodged on 23 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ulugbek Kholdarov , is an U zbekistan national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Yılmaz and Ms S.Yılmaz , lawyers practising in I stanbul .

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

The applicant was arrested after Andijan events in 2006 in Tashkent and he was detained for nineteen months. The applicant alleges that he was persecuted due to his religious beliefs.

After his release the applicant went to Turkey legally in 2008, having a temporary visa valid for one month.

On 15 April 2010 he was taken into police custody while he was at the Atatürk Airport in Istanbul . During the following five days he was kept in police custody at the airport police station.

On 20 April 2010 he was sent to the Istanbul Kumkap ı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre.

On 2 June 2010 the applicant applied to the Istanbul Magistrates ’ Court requesting his immediate release from detention.

On the same day the magistrates ’ court decided that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter as the applicant had not been detained within the scope of a criminal investigation. The court therefore ruled that any request had to be brought before administrative courts.

On an unspecified date, the applicant applied for asylum. The examination of his request is still pending.

On 25 June 2010 the applicant was released from the Removal Centre and he was instructed to settle in Bilecik within fifteen days.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was kept in detention at the Istanbul Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre in extremely unhygienic , unhealthy and poor living conditions. He also complained under the same head about the conditions of detention at the Atatürk A irport police station.

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

The applicant further contends under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention and that he was not notified of any decision taken in his case.

The applicant alleges under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he 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 he was not able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he could not claim compensation for the afore mentioned violations of Article 5.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

T he 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 held in them between 20 April 2010 and 25 June 2010, the opportunities for fresh air and dail y exercise, and the hygiene conditions.

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

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

4. 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?

The Government are requested to submit j udicial decisions in response to detainees ’ requests to be released in comparable situations.

5 . 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?