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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37547/22 D.J. against Türkiye lodged on 8 July 2022 communicated on 30 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Uzbek national who identifies himself as being of Turkmen ethnic origin and as an activist for the independence of Karakalpakstan, an autonomous republic within Uzbekistan. He left his country for Türkiye in 2016. The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty with a view to his removal from Türkiye, and his expulsion to Uzbekistan, which was allegedly carried out in breach of the procedure prescribed by domestic law. On 25 October 2020 the applicant was arrested for violating the Meetings and Demonstrations Act (Law no. 2911) during a demonstration in Istanbul. The administration subsequently issued two removal orders, both annulled by the domestic courts on the grounds that no assessment had been carried out concerning the risk of ill-treatment. The applicant thereafter lodged an application for international protection. On 20 December 2021 the applicant informed the authorities that he had been subjected to harassment and unlawful physical surveillance by unidentified individuals, and had received death threats. The authorities initiated a criminal investigation into these allegations. According to the applicant’s submissions, on 10 January 2022, two undercover police officers apprehended him at his place of residence. He was not permitted to contact either his legal representative or his relatives, nor was he informed of the reasons for his apprehension, effectively holding him incommunicado. His legal representative subsequently requested information from the authorities, filed a criminal complaint and lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court on the applicant’s behalf. On 11 January 2022 the Kocaeli Provincial Directorate of Migration Management placed the applicant in immigration detention and issued a removal order against him. The applicant was deported to Uzbekistan on the same day. In its summary judgment of 5 December 2022, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints inadmissible for his failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies. 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. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s international protection application pending at the time of his apprehension in Istanbul and his subsequent removal to Uzbekistan? 2.     What was the legal basis for the applicant’s removal to Uzbekistan on 11   January 2022? Did the Uzbek authorities submit a request for the applicant’s extradition? 3.     Did the applicant’s removal to Uzbekistan amount to a violation of Articles   2 and/or 3 of the Convention? In particular; (i)   Did the national authorities and courts fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill ‑ treatment if removed to Uzbekistan, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , F.G. v.   Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016)? (ii)   Did the applicant’s removal comply with the relevant legal procedure set out in the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458), the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Law   no.   6706) or elsewhere (see M.C. v. Türkiye , no. 31592/18, §§   25-29, 4   June 2024)? 4.     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 Uzbekistan prior to its execution (see, for example , Asalya v.   Turkey , no.   43875/09, §§ 113 14, 15 April 2014)? (ii)   Did the Constitutional Court adequately examine the applicant’s complaints and allegations (see, for example, Aden Ahmed v.   Malta , no.   55352/12, § 61, 23 July 2013)? 5.     Did the applicant exhaust all domestic remedies, within the meaning of Article   35   §   1 of the Convention, regarding his complaints under Article   5 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7? In particular, in light of the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the formal requirements imposed for the admissibility of individual applications, did the applicant satisfy these procedural requirements (see, for general principles, mutatis mutandis , Üçdağ v. Turkey , no. 23314/19, § 38, 31 August 2021, and the cases cited therein)? 6.     Was the applicant a lawful resident in Türkiye? If so, was his removal to Uzbekistan 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)?)? 7.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the period between 10 and 11 January 2022? 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 alleged apprehension on 10 January 2022 well-founded? 8.     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)? 9.     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 the applicant prevented from making any meaningful appeal and accessing to any remedies by being 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)? The Government are invited to provide all records and other documents pertaining to (i) the applicant’s application for international protection and its evaluation, (ii) the applicant’s deprivation of liberty including a time-line on the execution of removal proceedings, including any communication with the Uzbekistan authorities if applicable. They are further requested to provide proof of notification of such documents to the applicant. If the applicant was extradited to Uzbekistan, the Government are further requested to provide copies of relevant information and documents from the extradition file.