CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2026

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 9 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14006/23 A.A.A. against Türkiye lodged on 20 March 2023 communicated on 22 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Syrian national who fled his country of origin during the Syrian civil war, arriving in Türkiye in 2013. At the material time, he held a student residence permit and had a pending application for Turkish citizenship. On an unspecified date, the administration imposed a travel restriction on the applicant with a G-87 code ( threat to general security ). On 12   October 2017 a removal order was issued against him, and he was apprehended on the same day. The present application concerns the applicant’s allegations regarding his unlawful deportation to Syria on 13 October 2017, which he contends was a de facto deportation disguised as a voluntary return. He complains that the circumstances of his return amounted to ill-treatment, that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty in the course of these events, and that he was unable to access an effective remedy to challenge his detention and deportation proceedings. The applicant relies on Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a valid residency permit at the time of his apprehension and his subsequent removal to Syria?   2.     What was the legal basis for the applicant’s removal to Syria on 13   October 2017?   3.     What reason, and on what legal grounds, was the decision to transfer the applicant on 12 October 2017 from Samsun to Hatay taken?   4.     What was the nature and content of the document that the applicant allegedly refused to sign following purported coercion by the authorities in Samsun on 12 October 2017?   5.     If the applicant was sent to Syria on the basis of his request for voluntary return, when and where was that request conveyed to the authorities?   The Government are invited to submit the documents that served as the legal basis for the applicant’s removal to Syria on 13 October 2017. They are further requested to provide proof of notification of such documents to the applicant and copies of any records demonstrating the applicant’s access to, or waiver of, legal assistance and/or interpretation services. The Government are further 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.   6.     Is the voluntary return process accompanied by any procedural safeguards to prevent the risk of misuse or arbitrariness? What is the significance of the absence of a signature of a third-party observer in the voluntary return request form (see Akkad v. Turkey , no. 1557/19, § 33 and   86, 21   June 2022)?   7.     Did the applicant’s removal to Syria on 13 October 2017 amount to a violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention, having regard to the situation prevailing in Syria at the material time? In particular;   (i)     Did the applicant’s removal comply with the relevant legal procedure set out in the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458) or elsewhere? (ii)     If 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 prior to effecting the removal (see mutatis mutandis , Akkad , cited above, §§   59-69 and the cases cited therein)?   8.     Did 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;   (i)     Did 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 Samsun on 12   October 2017? Was the deportation order dated 12 October 2017 duly served to the applicant or his representative? (ii)     Did the Samsun First Administrative Court, the Samsun Regional 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 (see, mutatis mutandis , Akkad , cited above, §§   77-81 and the cases cited therein)?   9.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in relation to his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention (see   Kunshugarov v.   Türkiye , nos.   60811/15 and 54512/17, §§ 155-57, 14 January 2025)?   10.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the period between 12 and 13 October 2017? If so;   (i)     Did his deprivation of liberty during the relevant period fall under any of the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, §§   73-75, ECHR   2010)? (ii)     Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty during that period “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1? In particular, was it based on an official decision and did the State authorities follow the legal procedure set out in Law no. 6458 or elsewhere when depriving the applicant of his liberty (see G.B. and Others v. Turkey , no. 4633/15, §§ 145-51, 17 October 2019 and the cases cited therein)? (iii)     Was the applicant’s detention carried out in such a manner as to protect him from arbitrariness (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   13229/03, §§ 67-74, ECHR 2008)? In particular, is the applicant’s allegation that he was misinformed about where he was being taken at the time of his initial detention in Samsun on 12 October 2017 well-founded?   The Government are requested to indicate the legal basis for the applicant’s detention during the period in question and to provide all records and other documents pertaining to his detention.   11.     Was the applicant informed promptly, and in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5   §   2 of the Convention (see, for example, Khlaifia and Others v.   Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 115, 15 December 2016)?   12.     Did 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 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was his access to any such remedies unduly hindered by the acts or omissions of State authorities (see, for example, A.M. v. France , no.   56324/13, §§   40 ‑ 41, 12 July 2016, and G.B. and Others , cited above, §§   163-188 and compare Kunshugarov , cited above, §§ 168-74)?   13.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and   4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   14.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention on account of his removal to Syria on 13 October 2017, in particular having regard to the fact that his family members had temporary protection status in Türkiye and his ongoing student status at the material time (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgiu m , no. 13178/03, §§   75 ‑ 91, ECHR   2006-XI)?   15.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8 as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, §   83, ECHR   2012;   Al-Nashif v. Bulgari a , no. 50963/99, § 133, 20 June 2002; and M. and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 41416/08, §§ 122-32, 26 July 2011)?   The applicant is requested to provide information as to his current whereabouts and legal status. The Government are invited to provide all records and other documents pertaining to (i) the administrative actions pertaining to the imposition of the travel restriction on the applicant, (ii) the applicant’s deprivation of liberty, including a time-line showing where (and for how long) he was held after his apprehension, and (iii) the applicant’s removal to Syria on 13 October 2017. They are further requested to provide proof of notification of such documents to the applicant.