Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Iran or Iraq);Violation of Art. 13+3;No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently being held in the ORG Admission and ORG ( PERSON ) ( the “ FAC ” ) .

The applicant left GPE on DATE and joined ORG ( “ LOC ) in FAC in GPE on DATE . Following the disarmament of the ORG on DATE , he started living at ORG ( “ the TIPF ” ) , also in GPE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ ORG ” ) in GPE recognised the applicant as a refugee .

With the assistance of a people - smuggler , the applicant left GPE at DATE . In his application form the applicant stated that he was arrested on DATE , whereas in his CARDINAL subsequent statements given to the NORP authorities he stated that he was arrested in GPE on DATE . Among the documents submitted by the ORG is a list of individuals arrested on DATE and the applicant 's name is included therein .

The applicant was initially taken to a police station following his arrest . It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that at this station the applicant 's fingerprints were taken on DATE and , during his questioning on DATE , he was informed that he had been arrested for illegal entry into the country . The statement form dated DATE bears the applicant 's signature as well as that of a translator .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG and ORG ( ORG , the “ ORG ” ) in PERSON where , on DATE , he was questioned about his entry into GPE , his political background and the reasons for his flight from his country of origin .

The authorities initially transferred the applicant to a larger building at FAC on DATE , then to ORG on DATE .

NORP The applicant , an NORP national , was born in DATE and is currently being held at FAC .

The applicant was living in GPE with his wife and CARDINAL children when he became involved with the ORG . In DATE they fled to GPE , where he was recognised as a refugee by the ORG . At the time the applicant 's wife was pregnant with their sixth child . The applicant and his family resettled in GPE in DATE . DATE the applicant left GPE to join the ORG in GPE . In DATE he defected from the ORG and initially stayed at the ORG and then at FAC until DATE .

NORP Some time in DATE the applicant re - established contact with his family in GPE and left the PERSON on DATE . With the assistance of a people - smuggler he entered GPE illegally in either DATE and went to GPE . He lodged a request with the NORP authorities in GPE for a visa to enter GPE . While waiting for the outcome the applicant decided to flee to GPE .

The applicant stated before the ORG that he was arrested by the NORP authorities on TIME and taken to a gendarmerie station in GPE , ORG , where he asked for asylum and temporary leave to remain in GPE . He was then transferred TIME to an abandoned warehouse operated by ORG and kept there for DATE , before being transferred to a detention facility in GPE on DATE . The applicant was held here for a period of DATE .

In their submissions the ORG maintained that , following his arrest , the applicant was held at the accommodation centre for foreigners within the LOC of ORG ( the “ FAC ” ) . Among the documents submitted by the ORG , an arrest report lists the names of CARDINAL foreigners arrested on DATE , among whom there is a certain PERSON , an NORP national aged DATE . A transfer document dated DATE lists CARDINAL NORP nationals , which includes the same PERSON but notes that he was arrested on DATE . This document further indicates that these CARDINAL individuals were transferred from the gendarmerie headquarters to FAC .

On DATE the NORP authorities granted the applicant a visa to enter GPE . On DATE he was further granted work and residence permits for GPE .

On DATE the authorities transferred the applicant to ORG where he has been held since .

On DATE , either in GPE or in GPE , a police officer took the applicant 's statement in relation to the asylum procedures . The applicant stated that he and his family had been resettled in GPE DATE by the ORG . He had then returned to GPE on duty . He had been arrested by the NORP authorities while attempting to return to GPE after having completed his duty .

On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant requesting to withdraw his application . On DATE the applicant 's representative notified the ORG that the applicant wished to pursue his application . On DATE the applicant 's representative sent to the ORG CARDINAL letters written by the applicant on DATE , in LANGUAGE and in LANGUAGE , noting that he had been held in detention for DATE and specifying that he wanted to be deported to GPE where his life would be in danger . The applicant 's representative further submitted a psychological status report drawn by PERSON , apparently a free lance psychologist . The report indicated that the applicant was showing depressive symptoms , stress and anxiety disorder and that he needed urgent psychological and psychiatric support . In this connection it was further stated that the applicant said that he wished to go back to GPE which meant committing suicide and that he considered this to be better than the vagueness of his present situation .

Following the ORG 's interim measure requesting diagnosis of the applicant 's mental state to be carried out in a fully equipped state hospital , the ORG submitted on DATE a medical report drawn by a psychiatrist on CARDINAL March DATE . This single paragraph report stated that the applicant did not suffer from a psychotic illness , that he had insight into his condition and further diagnosis could not be carried out since the applicant refused to undergo a thorough psychiatric examination .

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are currently settled in GPE on the basis of a temporary residence permit .

The first applicant ( PERSON ) was involved with the ORG in DATE , while he was studying in GPE ( “ the GPE ” ) where he lived DATE . He then went to GPE , was recruited by the ORG and lived in FAC until DATE . After leaving ORG , the applicant went to the ORG where the ORG recognised his refugee status on DATE . The applicant left the ORG on DATE and went to GPE , where he met the second applicant .

The second applicant ( P.R.S. ) joined the FAC in GPE in DATE . In DATE he defected from the organisation and went to reside in the ORG , where the ORG recognised him as a refugee on DATE .

In DATE the applicants decided to flee GPE and go to the GPE ; they paid MONEY ( ORG ) to people - smugglers . On DATE they crossed the border from GPE to GPE , where they were arrested and sent back . Upon arrival on NORP territory on DATE , the NORP border officials arrested the applicants along with many others and drew up a list of names involving CARDINAL foreigners . It is further stated in this document that , in the absence of a translator , those listed could not be questioned with regard to the alleged breach of LAW . The authorities took the applicants to ORG DATE .

On DATE officers at the Passports and Foreigners ' Directorate ( “ GPE Yabancılar Şube Müdürlüğü ” ) questioned the applicants . Statement forms drawn up during the questioning indicate that , stating they spoke NORP , the applicants did not request a translator and gave a brief description of their background as well as how they had travelled to GPE . The Statement forms further indicate that the applicants were transferred to the said ORG following judicial proceedings against them for having illegally entered GPE .

On DATE the applicants were transferred to the Kırklareli Accommodation Centre .

On DATE the applicants requested ORG to release them .

ORG ordered the applicants ' release on DATE respectively . The authorities released the applicants on DATE and granted a temporary residence permit valid for DATE . On an appeal by ORG , ORG overturned , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG decision in respect of the first applicant . The court based its decision on public order and general security grounds due to the applicant 's former ORG membership . At the time the judgment was drafted the applicant had not yet been recalled to ORG .

The applicants in applications ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL mainly complained about overcrowded rooms , poor hygiene , the poor quality of food , a lack of proper drinking water , medical attention , insufficient hot water for bathing , an insufficient number of public telephones , and a lack of fresh air and exercise .

In this connection the applicant in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL submitted varying figures in respect of the size and capacity of the accommodation centre . Accordingly , he claimed in his initial application form that he had been kept in a building ( “ the first building ” ) consisting of CARDINAL rooms , each measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL beds and accommodating CARDINAL detainees . Thus he had to sleep on the floor for DATE before being able to occupy a bunk bed . Following his transfer to a bigger building ( “ the second building ” ) , the applicant submitted that this new place had been QUANTITY accommodating a varying number of people , from CARDINAL . In his final submissions to the ORG , the applicant maintained that the men 's unit in the first building measured QUANTITY , the sleeping area of which was QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds for an average of CARDINAL persons . In these submissions the applicant further stated that the second building was QUANTITY with a sleeping area of QUANTITY and accommodated an average of CARDINAL persons without any ventilation or sufficient light . The applicant added that , during DATE following his transfer to the second building , there had been no beds at all and the occupants had had to sleep on an insufficient number of dirty blankets and mattresses placed on the floor . CARDINAL bunk beds had gradually been brought into the accommodation centre . The building furthermore had no heating . There had been CARDINAL toilets without a flush , scarce hot water and no working showers . The applicant had only been allowed into the fresh air CARDINAL times during his DATE stay at ORG .

The applicant in application no . CARDINAL initially submitted CARDINAL photographs in respect of the first building he had been kept in . The photographs seem to have been taken with a mobile telephone . It is not clear whether these photographs are of the same room or of different rooms . There are bunk beds closely lined up parallel to the walls of the room with no apparent sheets , covers or pillows , some with blankets . In all photographs there is an uncountable number of men either lying down in the space in the middle of the room , within touching distance of each other , or sitting on blankets on the floor . Some of the men seem to be walking around those who are lying down . CARDINAL of the photographs shows men leaning over some individuals lying on the floor to reach a public telephone on the wall . In another photograph a crowd of men is sitting on the floor elbow to elbow eating a meal while others appear to be queuing for theirs at the far end of the room .

The applicant in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL subsequently submitted video footage of the second building and photographs derived from it , which had been recorded on the mobile telephone of another individual following the applicant 's departure . These visual submissions indicate that individuals were kept in a hangar - like hall with bunk beds lined up close to each other by the walls and numerous dirty mattresses spread around on the floor in the middle , mostly without any linen , pillows or blankets . The photographs and footage lack sufficient light . TIME seems to enter the hall from a number of windows placed near the high sloping roof and the main entrance to the hall , which is accessed through iron bars . The exact number of toilets and showers is not clear , since a piece of cloth has been placed in front of a door , blocking the view behind . However , as far as can be established , there appear to be CARDINAL stained toilets , a broken shower and a row of taps near a wall , possibly for washing feet . The building in general appears worn and dirty . The visual submissions do not reveal lockers , tables , chairs or any sort of personal items .

The applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL submitted the same CARDINAL photographs described above in respect of application no . CARDINAL . They claimed in their initial application form that the facility they had been kept in consisted of CARDINAL rooms and a bathroom , measuring in total QUANTITY with an average of CARDINAL people and CARDINAL beds . In their subsequent submissions they stated that the facility measured QUANTITY in total , with an average of CARDINAL individuals and a total of CARDINAL beds . The applicants maintained that , as a result , many individuals had to sleep on the floor with no bedding at all . They contended that the rooms did not have proper lighting or ventilation . Furthermore , they had not been allowed to spend time outdoors , which had been particularly unbearable due to cigarette smoking indoors .

The applicants contested the ORG 's replies summarised below .

The Government maintained that there were CARDINAL buildings for the purpose of holding illegal migrants , the total capacity of which amounted to CARDINAL persons . In this connection the ORG stated that the photographs submitted by the applicants had been taken during a TIME period when newcomers were gathered for pre - interview , interview and medical screening stages , following which they would have been settled in their rooms .

The food distributed at the accommodation centre consisted of CARDINAL - course meals and was supplied by a catering company . There was constant hot water for bathing and a water purifier for drinking water . The accommodation centre did not have a clinic but had an infirmary . Those who were sick were taken to local hospitals . The wards were regularly disinfected to ensure hygiene .

In support of their submissions the ORG provided CARDINAL photographs , which showed a big glass medicine container , rows of bunk beds placed close to each other with brand new mattresses still in their plastic coverings and pillows piled in a corner , a shower which did not appear to have a door or a curtain , a public telephone , a CARDINAL - course meal served on a tray , a water purifier , an on - site shop and a playground for children , as well as a small football field .

In application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant referred to the submissions of the applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and maintained that the conditions at the Kırklareli Accommodation Centre were better than those at the ORG due to fewer detainees and time outdoors . He maintained however that this facility was intolerable for an extended stay , because the food distributed lacked nutritional and calorific value , the water was undrinkable , hot water was not regularly available , work and educational activities were not provided and there was only minimal medical support .

In their submissions to the ORG , the applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL maintained that the physical conditions in the FAC were below the minimum standards set by ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( “ the ORG ” ) . In this respect they submitted a drawing of a room which they maintained was QUANTITY . Providing a number of photographs the applicants complained in particular that the hygiene and quality of food served to detainees had been poor and the drinking water extremely chalky . They therefore had to buy food from the over - priced on - site shop . The applicants further contended that they had insufficient access to hot water for showering . The applicants additionally complained that the FAC lacked proper recreation and exercise space , as well as medical facilities . The exercise facilities outdoors were only accessible TIME

Photographs presented by the applicants show CARDINAL - course meals varying between soup , mixed vegetables , bulgur , beans , chick - peas , lentils , bread and jam . There seems to be a white chalky substance at the bottom of a glass of water . Large cauldrons of food appear placed on tables in a hall . There are photographs of a dilapidated , unused kitchen . Some photographs show meals distributed by staff members , others by detainees . CARDINAL of the photographs indicates that the staff member distributing food is wearing plastic gloves . There are no queues for meals . The applicants further submitted photographs of CARDINAL showers in closed cabins . CARDINAL of the showers appears to be broken . There are also photographs of CARDINAL squat toilets , CARDINAL with dark stains and the other appearing reasonably clean . Applicants also submitted photographs of barbed wire surrounding the accommodation facility , metal bars outside their windows , a tower water tank , rubbish containers where there seem to be large amounts of cartons , paper and plastic bags lying around , as well as a broken plastic chair , and a volleyball field with overgrown grass . There are also photographs of a round - table gathering apparently between ORG officials and occupants of the accommodation centre , as well as of a religious ceremony , the subsequent distribution of meat and an exchange of greetings .

The applicants objected to the ORG 's replies below .

The Government submitted that the rooms were of a standard size , shared by CARDINAL people and measuring QUANTITY . They maintained that the kitchen facility seen in the photographs submitted by the applicants was not in use and the food was supplied externally by a catering company . With regard to the tap water , the Government stated that the staff had been using the same water supply and that there had been no medical incident arising from its use . Additionally the Government provided photographs of various social events organised at the accommodation centre . Other photographs included those of a medical clinic in the centre , individuals playing volleyball and walking around in the garden , playing in the snow , a girl around the age of CARDINAL riding a small bicycle outdoors , the distribution of meals , toilets and sinks , a prayer room , a football field , a television room and a table tennis facility . CARDINAL of the rooms appears to have a toilet and shower . Other photographs indicate that there is a separate shower and toilet area as well as a washing machine for common use . Some of the photographs provide images of DATE life , such as an individual painting on canvas or CARDINAL individuals having tea in a room . Rooms seem to have natural light coming through large windows . Whether bunk beds or ordinary beds , all beds appear to have pillows , blankets and linen . Photographs show that the rooms are equipped with curtains , ceiling lights , large personal lockers and central heating radiators . They are decorated with detainees ' personal belongings , such as carpets on floors or posters on walls . Some rooms seem to have plastic tables and chairs . In CARDINAL of the photographs there is a computer , a ventilator and a small Christmas tree . The Government also presented photographs of the barbed - wire perimeter , empty rubbish containers , the collection of garbage by municipality staff and an official giving presents to occupants .

The applicant in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL complained that he had initially been detained for DATE in poor conditions in an overcrowded warehouse operated by ORG . He claimed to have been held in unhygienic conditions with insufficient natural light and ventilation , insufficient access to sanitary facilities , without bedding , safe drinking water , proper food , medical support , sufficient hot water , any indoor or outdoor activities or contact with the outside world .

With respect to the conditions at the Didim Accommodation Centre , the applicant maintained that he shared a dormitory with CARDINAL other people and had no privacy . He suffered from a lack of fresh air , proper food , drinking water , proper bedding , extra clothing , personal hygiene items and hot water , as well as insufficient access to sanitary facilities . He had observed a total of CARDINAL beds and CARDINAL occupants in the centre during his stay . He had not been allowed access to the outdoors and was refused contact with the outside world .

The applicant further contested the ORG 's replies summarised below .

The Government maintained that the applicant had been taken to the Didim Accommodation Centre following his arrest , and did not reply to the applicant 's allegations regarding his alleged detention in a warehouse operated by ORG . With respect to the FAC , the Government maintained that there were CARDINAL dormitories with bunk beds . The families were kept in separate rooms where possible . All rooms had windows opening outward . The facility had a kitchen , prayer room , dining hall , television room , toilet , bathroom and QUANTITY hot water . According to the Government , the tap water was drinkable and the food at the centre was provided by a catering company . The inhabitants of the accommodation centre underwent DATE medical checkups and medicine was provided by the ORG . Likewise , cleaning materials such as washing powder , soap and bleach , was provided by ORG . In this connection the Government provided a number of receipts indicating payments to a catering company , bakery , market and a dairy products company . ORG also submitted the menu served at the accommodation centre DATE . The menu indicates that meals consisting of CARDINAL to CARDINAL courses were served every day of the week . The food varied between soup and vegetables , pasta and meat or meatballs and dried beans and yoghurt . Salad and fruit seem to be served occasionally . The ORG further submitted CARDINAL receipts dated CARDINAL and DATE indicating payment to a pharmacy for a total of CARDINAL prescriptions .

The Government provided CARDINAL photographs of the FAC . There are photographs of CARDINAL separate rooms , seemingly occupied by CARDINAL families . The rooms have large windows with curtains and iron bars on the outside , central heating radiators and bunk beds with white bedding and blankets . In CARDINAL of the rooms there is a flat carpet and in the other a plastic chair . There are also photographs of a kitchen with an electric stove , a squat toilet , an electric water heater , a small sink and what seems to be the main entrance of the centre .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning asylum procedures may be found in the case of GPE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

A.A. , an NORP refugee , was held in an accommodation centre at the relevant time . On DATE he requested ORG to release him and subsequently lodged a case with ORG on DATE . Stating that he had been recognised as a refugee by ORG , PERSON mainly argued that his detention was unlawful . At the time , PERSON 's request for a residence permit on family reunification grounds was under examination by the NORP authorities . On DATE ORG ordered PERSON 's release .

Following his visit to GPE DATE and DATE , the Commissioner for Human Rights of ORG published a report on DATE regarding , inter alia , the situation of asylum seekers and refugees . The relevant part of the executive summary reads as follows :

“ ... Having welcomed the efforts made by the NORP authorities to improve living conditions in places of detention he visited [ GPE and GPE ] , the Commissioner remains concerned about reports of severe deficits in other holding facilities . He urges the authorities to secure dignified standards of living for all detained asylum seekers , to ensure that detention is the exception and be limited to certain purposes and to the shortest possible time . ... Further he urges the authorities to ensure the prompt provision of information to asylum - seekers in a language they understand , including the reasons of their arrest and detention , [ and ] to provide for prompt judicial review of detention ... ”

The relevant paragraphs of ORG ( ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ) concerning the conditions of detention of foreign nationals , as well as of a report on ORG issued by ORG on DATE , may be found in the case of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

In DATE ORG visited , inter alia , ORG and published a report on DATE entitled ' Stuck in a Revolving Door ' . The relevant extracts from the report read as follows :

“ ... ORG spent DATE visiting the ORG detention facility . The access we were given to the facility was particularly remarkable given the absolutely dreadful conditions we found there . On DATE we visited , DATE , the detainee population was CARDINAL . The capacity of the facility is CARDINAL . By our second visit , CARDINAL people had been released , including , as it turned out , nearly everyone who spoke LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE , the languages of our interpreters . Nevertheless , we were permitted to interview anyone we chose in a completely private setting in a courtyard outside a building holding most of the detainees .

The ORG facility at PERSON is comprised of CARDINAL buildings , each divided into CARDINAL rooms . The smaller of the CARDINAL buildings holds in CARDINAL room women and children and in the other men who appear to have prospects of relatively quick identification and cooperation from their home consulates to effect their removal from GPE . The countries of origin of the men in the small building included GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , and GPE . The larger building which holds by far the larger number of detainees is divided into a smaller room for men who will be released to GPE because they are members of nationalities that can not be deported , such as NORP and NORP , and the larger room which holds the largest number of men — CARDINAL on our first visit — who are held indefinitely pending their relatives providing tickets for their return flights or until they can be deported . Most of the men in the big room appeared to be south NORP from countries like GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , as well as various NORP nationalities . The authorities also put “ NORP , ” “ NORP , ” “ NORP , ” and “ NORP ” in the big room when they doubted their declared nationalities .

The conditions in the big building , particularly in the bigger of the CARDINAL rooms , are abysmal — completely unfit for human habitation , even for a short duration . As a place of indefinite detention , the conditions alone are inhuman and degrading .

Words fail to describe the sight and smell of CARDINAL men crammed into a single room . For our own security , we were not allowed to walk into the room , but stood at the only door to the room , a padlocked iron gate , where we peered into the darkness . Though men crowded toward us , they parted their human sea so we could see the jammed crowd all the way to the wall . There was no space between any bodies ; they sat shoulder to shoulder both along the walls and in the room 's interior .

The big building looks like an old warehouse . It is dark and fetid . There are only small windows at the ceiling level and these are made of glass so are useless in terms of air circulation and cooling . There is CARDINAL window fan and CARDINAL other fan at the end of the room . Although the larger of the CARDINAL rooms has an exit that leads to the courtyard that could theoretically be used to provide fresh air and exercise , in fact , except for those interviewed by ORG , none of the detainees had ever been allowed into the yard . The smaller of the CARDINAL rooms does n't even have a door that leads to the yard .

The strongest first impressions of PERSON are the overcrowding , the desperation , the stench and the grime . ... ”