CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12965/21 M.R. against Türkiye lodged on 4 March 2021 communicated on 30 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Syrian national. He arrived in Türkiye in 2011, having fled his country of origin during the Syrian civil war, and was subsequently granted temporary protection. While his Syrian government-issued family registration states his date of birth as 1 January 2002, his registration in the Turkish immigration database records his birth year as 2000. On 5 August 2019 the applicant was apprehended while driving an unlicensed motorbike and charged with the offence of counterfeiting an official document. On 6 August 2019 he was placed in police custody at the Foreigners’ Branch ( Yabancılar Şube Müdürlüğü ) of the Pendik Security Directorate. Subsequently, on 21 August 2019 he was placed in immigration detention and issued a removal order. He was transferred to the Binkılıç Removal Centre the following day. According to official records, the applicant was returned to Syria on 24 August 2019 under the voluntary repatriation scheme. The present application primarily concerns the applicant’s complaints regarding his alleged unlawful removal to Syria on 24 August 2019, which he contends was a de facto deportation disguised as a voluntary return. He claims the circumstances of his return amounted to ill-treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention. He further complains of the unlawful deprivation of his liberty in the course of these events, and his inability at the material time to access an effective remedy to challenge his detention and de facto deportation proceedings. On 23 August 2019 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, together with a request for interim measures to suspend his removal to Syria. This request was granted on 26 August 2019, that is, after his departure from Türkiye. On 20   April 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints relating to the inadequate conditions and the alleged unlawfulness of his detention inadmissible for failure to exhaust the action for a full remedy ( tam yargı davası ) before the administrative courts, which could have been an effective remedy. The complaint regarding his removal was struck out as the Constitutional Court determined that the applicant had voluntarily returned to Syria. This decision was notified to the applicant on 4 June 2020. Meanwhile, on 23 September 2019, the applicant’s relatives lodged a second individual application with the Constitutional Court. This application included complaints concerning the applicant’s alleged unlawful detention, his subsequent removal to Syria, the resulting breach of his right to private and family life (Article 8), and the inability to challenge these measures. In its summary decision of 30 June 2021, the Constitutional Court dismissed the majority of the complaints as being substantially the same as those raised in the first application. Furthermore, the complaint regarding the breach of the right to private and family life was declared inadmissible ratione personae . The applicant relies on Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. According to the latest information in the case file, the applicant re-entered Türkiye irregularly and currently resides in Istanbul. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES A.     The applicant’s detention and removal to Syria   1.     Was the applicant a minor at the material time, as he alleges?   2.     What was the legal basis for the applicant’s removal to Syria on 24   August 2019?   3.     For what reason, and on what legal grounds, was the decision to transfer the applicant from Istanbul to Hatay taken on 22 August 2019?   4.     What was the nature and content of the document that the applicant was allegedly forced to sign by the authorities at the Cilvegözü border gate in Hatay on 23 August 2019? Was the applicant provided with an interpreter and/or offered the assistance of a lawyer prior to the signing of the voluntary return document on 23 August 2019? Was the applicant given a copy of the document?   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 24 August 2019, 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.     Was the voluntary return process in the applicant’s case 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 24 August 2019 amount to a violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention, having regard to the applicant’s age and 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 his 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 Istanbul on 5   August 2019? (ii)     Did the Constitutional Court and the other domestic authorities adequately examine the complaints and allegations that the applicant brought before them prior to, and in the aftermath of, his removal to Syria (see, mutatis mutandis , Akkad , cited above, §§ 77-81 and the cases cited therein)?   9.     Was the applicant’s removal to Syria in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania [GC], no. 80982/12, §§   114-24, 15   October 2020)?   10.     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 , cited above, §§   155 ‑ 57)?   11.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the period between 6 and 24 August 2019? 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 official decisions and did the State authorities follow the legal procedure set out in the relevant domestic law when depriving the applicant of his liberty, especially considering his age at the material time (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)?   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, including a   time-line   showing where (and for how long) he was held after his apprehension on 5   August 2019.   12.     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)?   13.     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 remedy unduly hindered by the acts or omissions of the 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)?   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 24 August 2019, in particular having regard to his age at the material time and the fact that his family members had temporary protection status in Türkiye?   B.     The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment prior to his removal to Syria   15.     Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in relation to his allegations of ill-treatment contrary to Articles 3 and/or 8 prior to his removal to Syria?   16.     Did the circumstances in which the applicant was deprived of his liberty amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, especially considering his age at the material time and noting in particular the conditions of his detention in the Foreigners’ Branch of the Pendik Security Directorate between 6-21 August 2019 as well as his subsequent transfer from Istanbul to Hatay on 22-23 August 2019 (see, mutatis mutandis , Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v.   Belgium , no.   13178/03, §§ 75-91, ECHR 2006-XI; Moustahi v. France , no.   9347/14, §   110, 25 June 2020; Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v.   Malta , nos.   25794/13 and 28151/13, §§ 99-104, 22 November 2016 and compare Akkad , cited above, §§ 110-15)?   17.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint 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)? In particular, what was the scope of review of the Turkish Constitutional Court which examined the applicant’s complaint and declared it inadmissible due to incompatibility ratione personae in its decision dated 30 June 2021?   The parties are further requested to provide a timeline indicating where and how the applicant was transferred to Hatay on 22–23 August 2019, as well as the conditions of his detention at the material time .