Communicated on 25 March 2019<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 1557\/19
\nMuhammad Fawzi AKKAD
\nagainst Turkey
\nlodged on 21 December 2018<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant is a Syrian national, who fled Syria to Turkey in June 2014 (when he was 17 years-old) with his family to escape the ongoing civil war there. It appears that shortly afterwards, he was granted leave to stay in Turkey under \u201ctemporary protection\u201d. In June 2018 he was apprehended near the Greek border in Edirne while trying to leave Turkey illegally. The present application concerns the applicant\u2019s allegations as to his unlawful deportation to Syria by Turkish authorities following his apprehension in June\u00a02018 in circumstances that had amounted to ill-treatment, the unlawful deprivation of his liberty during that process, and his inability at the material time to access an effective remedy to challenge his unlawful detention and deportation. The applicant relies on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.<\/p>\n According to the latest information in the case file, the applicant is currently in Germany pending the review of his application for refugee status.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s detention and removal to Syria:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have \u201ctemporary protection\u201d status at the time of his apprehension near the Greek border in Edirne and his subsequent removal to Syria?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0What is the legal procedure that is followed in respect of persons under temporary protection who are caught while attempting to leave Turkey by illegal means?<\/p>\n The Government are invited to provide relevant material from domestic law and practice in support of their response.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0For what reason, and on what legal grounds, was the decision to transfer the applicant from Edirne to Hatay taken on 20 June 2018?<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0What was the legal basis for the applicant\u2019s removal to Syria on 21\u00a0June 2018?<\/p>\n The Government are invited to submit the documents that served as the legal basis for the applicant\u2019s removal to Syria on 21 June 2018. They are further requested to provide proof of notification of such documents to the applicant.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0What was the nature and content of the document that the applicant was allegedly forced to sign by the authorities at the Reyhanl\u0131 border gate in Hatay right before his removal on 21\u00a0June 2018? Was the applicant provided with an interpreter and\/or offered the assistance of a lawyer prior to signing that document? Was the applicant given a copy of the document that he had allegedly signed?<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0If the applicant was sent to Syria on the basis of his request for voluntary return, as indicated in the letter addressed by the K\u0131rklareli Provincial Directorate for Migration Management to the Edirne Administrative Court on 17 July 2018, when and where was that request conveyed to the authorities?<\/p>\n The Government are invited to submit all information and documents that may serve to prove that the applicant had agreed to return to Syria by his own free will.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0What is the legal procedure in Turkey for the \u201cvoluntary return\u201d of foreigners, in particular those under temporary protection? Is the voluntary return process accompanied by any procedural safeguards to prevent the risk of misuse or arbitrariness?<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant\u2019s removal to Syria on 21 June 2018 amount to a violation of Articles 2 and\/or 3 of the Convention, having regard to the ongoing armed conflict there? In particular;<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant\u2019s removal comply with the relevant legal procedure set out in the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458) or elsewhere?<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0If the applicant was removed to Syria forcefully as alleged, did the authorities adequately examine whether he would face a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to Articles 2 and\/or 3 of the Convention in Syria before going ahead with his removal (see, mutatis mutandis, Auad v.\u00a0Bulgaria, no.\u00a046390\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 95-108, 11\u00a0October 2011; F.G. v.\u00a0Sweden [GC], no.\u00a043611\/11, \u00a7 127, ECHR 2016; and Babajanov v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a049867\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 41-49, 10 May 2016)?<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required under Article 13 of the Convention, in connection with his complaints under Articles 2 and 3? In particular;<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have a realistic opportunity to challenge his removal to Syria prior to its execution? Was he provided with the opportunity to have access to a lawyer as from the time of his detention in Edirne on 19\u00a0June 2018?<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Did the Edirne Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court adequately examine the complaints and allegations that the applicant brought before them in the aftermath of his removal to Syria?<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant\u2019s removal to Syria in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention?<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention during the period between 19 and 21 June 2018? If so;<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Did his deprivation of liberty during the relevant period fall under any of the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 \u00a7 1?<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty during that period \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1? In particular, was it based on an official decision and did the State authorities follow the legal procedure set out in Law\u00a0no. 6458 or elsewhere when depriving the applicant of his liberty?<\/p>\n The Government are requested to indicate the legal basis for the applicant\u2019s detention during the period in question and to provide all records and other documents pertaining to his detention, including a time-line showing where (and for how long) he was held after his apprehension on 19\u00a0June 2018.<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant\u2019s detention carried out in such a manner as to protect him from arbitrariness (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.\u00a013229\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 67-74, ECHR 2008)? In particular, is the applicant\u2019s allegation that he was misinformed about where he was being taken at the time of his initial detention in Edirne on 19 June 2018 well-founded?<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant informed promptly, and in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention?<\/p>\n The Government are invited to submit the relevant documents in support of their response.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty and obtain his release as appropriate, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention? In particular, was his access to any such remedies unduly hindered by the acts or omissions of State authorities?<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01, 2 and 4, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant fully exhaust all remedies available to him in domestic law in connection with his above complaints? In this connection, what is the significance of the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 12\u00a0September 2018, where it has dismissed all of the complaints that the applicant has raised in the context of the present application?<\/p>\n The applicant is requested to provide information as to his current whereabouts and legal status.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment prior to his removal to Syria<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in relation to his allegations of ill\u2011treatment prior to his removal to Syria? If so;<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Did the circumstances in which the applicant was transferred from Edirne to Hatay amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, noting in particular that he was allegedly handcuffed for the most part of the twenty-hour bus drive?<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment at the border gate in Reyhanl\u0131 by State agents, while he was allegedly being forced to sign the document mentioned in question 5 above? If so, did that ill-treatment amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention?<\/p>\n The applicant is requested to provide a detailed account of how he was allegedly ill-treated at the border gate.<\/p>\n