CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 décembre 2021

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)419 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 10 cases against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 December 2021 at the 1420 th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 30471/08 ABDOLKHANİ AND KARİMNİA 22/09/2009 01/03/2010 46605/07 CHARAHİLİ 13/04/2010 13/07/2010 81681/12 R.M. 13/06/2017 13/09/2017 21896/08 Z.N.S 19/01/2010 28/06/2010 12717/08 AHMADPOUR 15/06/2010 22/11/2010 15916/09 DBOUBA 13/07/2010 13/10/2010 36370/08 KESHMİRİ 13/04/2010 13/07/2010 16026/12 AMERKHANOV 05/06/2018 05/09/2018 32940/08+ TEHRANİ AND OTHERS 13/04/2010 13/07/2010 43875/09 ASALYA 15/04/2014 15/07/2014   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established stemming from the deportation and extradition proceedings which mainly concern:   -           the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to deportation and extradition and setting time-limits for such detention (violations of Article 5, paragraph 1);   -           the failure to communicate/promptly communicate the reasons for the applicants’ detention (violations of Article 5, paragraph 2);   -           the failure of the Turkish legal system to provide the applicants with a remedy whereby, they could obtain speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention and receive compensation in this respect (violations of Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5);   -           the applicants’ inhuman or degrading treatment on account of their conditions of detention and that of the lack of effective remedy thereof (violations of Article 3 and 13);   -           the national authorities’ failure to conduct an adequate examination of the applicants’ claim that they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if removed to their country and the lack of a legal procedure providing safeguards against unlawful deportation (violations of Article 3); the failure to afford the applicants an effective and accessible remedy in relation to their complaints since an application seeking the annulment of a deportation did not have automatic suspensive effect (violations of Article 13);   -           the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant and that lack of an effective remedy whereby he could have contested the length of the proceedings (violation of Articles 6, paragraph 1, and 13 in the case of Ademovic (28523/03));     Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government, indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2021)1288 );   Having noted with satisfaction the adoption of the current Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458) which entered into force on 11 April 2014 and remedied the lacuna in Turkish law regarding the detention of foreign nationals in the context of immigration controls providing a legal basis for such detention and also set out a legal mechanism for reviewing its lawfulness; having also noted the case-law of the Turkish Constitutional Court and administrative court decisions submitted allowing the parties to receive compensation for their unlawful detention from the administrative courts;   Having further noted with satisfaction that the Law no. 6458 sets forth clear procedures for the removal of foreign nationals, as well as judicial review of removal orders with automatic suspensive effect;   Having further noted with satisfaction the adoption of the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Law no. 6706) on 5 May 2016 providing, among others, detailed provisions on extradition proceedings and detention pending extradition;   Having noted the adoption of the “Regulation on the establishment, management, operation, outsourcing and inspection of reception and accommodation centres and removal centres (dated 22 April 2014)” providing detailed rules and procedures in the establishment and operation of these premises;   Having noted that the applications in these cases were lodged with the Court between 25 October 2007 and 5 October 2012 and that none of the applications in these cases concerns the application of the Laws nos. 6458 and 6706 ;     Having also noted that the issue of the implementation of the Law no. 6458 will continue to be examined in the G.B. and Others (4633/15) case and that the closure of the present cases does not prejudge the assessment which the Committee will make in this respect;   Recalling that the issues related to the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedy thereof have been examined under Ormancı group of cases (Application No. 43647/98) whose examination has been closed (see CM/ResDH(2014)298 );   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.