CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 19 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36370/21 H.K.T. and I.T. against Türkiye lodged on 9 July 2021 communicated on 16 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, H.K.T. (the first applicant) and I.T. (the second applicant) are an Iranian couple who entered Türkiye lawfully on 25 November 2021. They contend that they fled Iran owing to their fear of persecution on account of their political activities on behalf of the “Worker-communist Party of Iran”. The application concerns the first applicant’s alleged deportation in the absence of a removal order and the second applicant’s threatened removal to Iran, both without an adequate assessment by the domestic authorities of the risks they would face there upon their return. In December 2013 the applicants were recognized as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (“UNHCR”) in Türkiye. Subsequently, in March 2015, they were granted international protection applicant status by the domestic authorities. They were also granted leave to reside in Yalova. On 8 May 2016 both applicants were arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of theft. Subsequently, the Yalova Governor’s Office decided to withdraw their international protection applications under section 77 of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (“Law no. 6458”), citing their departure from their assigned city of residence without authorization. The applicants’ appeal against this decision was dismissed by the administrative courts. On 24 February 2017 the applicants lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, accompanied by a request for an interim measure. This request was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 15 March 2017, on the ground that the applicants’ removal had not yet been ordered by the domestic authorities. On 1 April 2017 the first applicant was arrested in Istanbul and deported to Iran, allegedly without prior notification of any official decision ordering his removal. On 7 September 2017 the applicants’ representative filed an additional submission with the Constitutional Court to inform it of the first applicant’s removal. On 13 January 2021 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ claims inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, reiterating that no deportation orders had been issued against them. The applicants mainly rely on Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What was the legal basis for the first applicant’s removal to Iran on 1   April 2017? The Government is requested to provide all relevant documents pertaining to the procedure relating to the first applicant’s alleged removal to Iran, specifically copies of the deportation order and associated legal notifications . 2.     Did the first applicant’s removal to Iran on 1 April 2017 amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular; did the domestic authorities and the Constitutional Court fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of ill treatment if removed to Iran, as required by Article 3 of the Convention ( see for example, Khasanov and Rakhmanov v.   Russia   [GC], nos.   28492/15 and 49975/15, §§ 93-116, 29   April 2022; Mamazhonov v.   Russia , no. 17239/13, §§ 127-137, 23 October 2014; and Babajanov v.   Turkey , no. 49867/08, §§ 41-49, 10 May 2016)? 3.     Has the first applicant had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention if he were to be deported, as required by Article 13 of the Convention see, for example, Asalya v.   Turkey , no.   43875/09, §§   113 ‑ 14, 15 April 2014)? In particular, did the Constitutional Court duly consider the additional submissions of 7 September 2017 concerning the applicant’s removal to Iran prior to rendering its decision of 13   January 2021? The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents pertinent to the first applicant’s international protection and removal proceedings, including any risk assessment conducted by the domestic authorities concerning the potential risks to the applicant upon removal to Iran. The first applicant is also requested to provide information regarding any treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention that he encountered upon his removal to Iran and to support his response with relevant material. The applicant is also reminded that the documents submitted should be in one of the Court’s official languages (English or French) or in Turkish. 4.     What is the second applicant’s current status in Türkiye? Has the applicant sought asylum in Türkiye? If so, what was the outcome of the asylum proceedings? 5.     Is the second applicant currently under a threat of deportation to Iran or elsewhere? If so, would she face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention through direct or indirect refoulement ?