I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SHENTURK v. AZERBAIJAN.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-10-14
  • Communication date: 2018-07-05
  • Application number(s): 41326/17
  • Country:   AZE
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-f, 5-4, 13, P7-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.606743
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Taci Shenturk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and at the time of the events lived in Azerbaijan.
He is represented before the Court by Ms A. Nasirli and Mr S. Rahimli.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicant moved to Azerbaijan where he worked in private schools affiliated to the Gülen movement.
He was granted a temporary residence permit which was regularly extended.
On 9 March 2017 his temporary residence permit was extended de novo until 9 September 2017.
On 3 June 2017 the Turkish authorities informed Azerbaijani counterparts via Interpol that the applicant’s passport had been cancelled and therefore requested the Azerbaijani authorities to arrest and deport the applicant to Turkey.
At about 2.00 p.m. on 7 June 2017 the applicant was arrested and brought to the temporary detention facility of the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the OCD”) where he was informed that he would be taken to Baku International Airport and deported to Turkey at 8.30 p.m. on the same day.
The applicant informed officers of the OCD about his intention to request asylum in Azerbaijan on the ground of his persecution in Turkey and repeatedly asked the officers not to deport him.
However, his demands were ignored.
While in detention, the applicant informed his wife and friends about his arrest and imminent removal.
His friends retained a lawyer who applied on the applicant’s behalf for asylum to the UNHCR Baku Office, the State Migration Service (“the SMS”), the OCD and to the Office for Affairs of Refugees and Displaced Persons, asking to grant the applicant refuges status due the risk of him being subjected to persecution and ill-treatment in Turkey.
On the same date the UNHCR Baku Office issued a temporary protection letter with respect to the applicant, his wife and their four children, valid until 7 September 2017, on the basis of the fact that they were registered with the UNHCR and their asylum request was under consideration by the national authorities.
At 8.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant’s wife, children and friends arrived at the airport, apparently in the attempt to prevent the applicant’s deportation.
The applicant was able to speak to his family members and friends for five minutes.
Afterwards, he was led away by the OCD officers to proceed with boarding the plane for the scheduled flight.
At the customs and border control, the applicant informed the officer on duty from the State Border Service that he was seeking asylum in Azerbaijan.
The officer in question called a representative from the SMS and the applicant reiterated his request.
However, according to the applicant the representative of the SMS ignored his request.
At some point, while the applicant was already in the boarding area, a staff member of the UNHCR in Azerbaijan arrived at the airport and intervened with a view to preventing the applicant’s removal.
As a result, the applicant was not put on the plane and was taken back to the detention facility of the OCD.
At about 11.00 p.m. on the same day, the applicant’s lawyer came to the detention facility to meet the applicant, but he was not allowed to do so.
On 8 June 2017 the applicant’s lawyer applied to the SMS with a written request to grant the applicant refugee status.
There is no information about the outcome of this request.
On the same date, without informing the UNHCR Baku office and the applicant’s family, the OCD officers took the applicant again to Baku International Airport and put him on a plane to Ankara.
Upon arrival to Ankara, the applicant was arrested by the Turkish police and sent to Konya where he was remanded in custody in connection with criminal investigation into his alleged involvement in the Gülenist Terrorist Organisation (FETÖ/PDY).
Meanwhile, the applicant’s wife, who was not aware at the time about the applicant’s removal, applied to various authorities concerning his whereabouts.
On 23 June 2017 the State Border Service informed the applicant’s wife that her husband had been deported to Turkey on 8 June 2017.
On 6 July 2017 the OCD also informed the applicant’s wife that her husband “left Azerbaijan” for Turkey on 8 June 2017 due to the fact that the Turkish authorities issued an arrest warrant against the applicant because he was suspected of being involved in FETÖ/PDY.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 that his forcible removal to Turkey exposed him to a real risk of ill-treatment in that country.
The applicant complains under Article 5 that his detention was unlawful.
The applicant complains that his expulsion to Turkey was in breach of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.
7 to the Convention.
Relying on Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 the applicant complains that he had no effective remedy by which he could have challenged the lawfulness of his detention and his expulsion on the grounds that he would risk being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if removed.

Judgment

FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BARANYI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos.
45540/20 and 5 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 October 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Baranyi and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3.
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no. 1552/21, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5.
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3.
Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7.
The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‐XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‐X, with further references). 8. In the leading cases of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014 and Lakatos v. Hungary, no. 21786/15, 26 June 2018, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11. In application no. 1552/21, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violation of Article 5 § 4 the Convention in the light of its findings in, among many authorities, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016. 12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Gál, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Attila Teplán Erik Wennerström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45540/20
17/09/2020
Lóránt BARANYI
1981
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
26/01/2019 to 21/10/2019

12/12/2019
pending
8 month(s) and 26 day(s)

More than 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s)

3,400
54030/20
20/11/2020
Zoltán VERES
2000
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
20/06/2018 to
30/09/2020
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)

3,100
54292/20
13/11/2020
Dávid FAZEKAS
1997
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
27/09/2018 to
16/11/2020
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s)

2,900
54350/20
27/11/2020
Zoltán ZABARI
1986
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
13/06/2019 to
02/07/2021
2 year(s) and 20 day(s)

2,700
1552/21
17/12/2020
László HERCZEG
1990
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
18/06/2019 to
05/11/2020
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)

Art.
5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 6-month review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention took place 34 days after the deadline. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon with delays of 2-3 months. 2,500
3956/21
11/12/2020
Marcell Ercsin CSINIK
1990
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
18/12/2017 to
19/03/2020
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

3,100

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BARANYI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos.
45540/20 and 5 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 October 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Baranyi and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3.
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no. 1552/21, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5.
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3.
Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7.
The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‐XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‐X, with further references). 8. In the leading cases of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014 and Lakatos v. Hungary, no. 21786/15, 26 June 2018, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11. In application no. 1552/21, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violation of Article 5 § 4 the Convention in the light of its findings in, among many authorities, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016. 12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Gál, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Attila Teplán Erik Wennerström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45540/20
17/09/2020
Lóránt BARANYI
1981
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
26/01/2019 to 21/10/2019

12/12/2019
pending
8 month(s) and 26 day(s)

More than 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s)

3,400
54030/20
20/11/2020
Zoltán VERES
2000
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
20/06/2018 to
30/09/2020
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)

3,100
54292/20
13/11/2020
Dávid FAZEKAS
1997
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
27/09/2018 to
16/11/2020
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s)

2,900
54350/20
27/11/2020
Zoltán ZABARI
1986
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
13/06/2019 to
02/07/2021
2 year(s) and 20 day(s)

2,700
1552/21
17/12/2020
László HERCZEG
1990
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
18/06/2019 to
05/11/2020
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)

Art.
5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 6-month review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention took place 34 days after the deadline. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon with delays of 2-3 months. 2,500
3956/21
11/12/2020
Marcell Ercsin CSINIK
1990
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
18/12/2017 to
19/03/2020
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

3,100

No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45540/20
17/09/2020
Lóránt BARANYI
1981
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
26/01/2019 to 21/10/2019

12/12/2019
pending
8 month(s) and 26 day(s)

More than 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s)

3,400
54030/20
20/11/2020
Zoltán VERES
2000
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
20/06/2018 to
30/09/2020
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)

3,100
54292/20
13/11/2020
Dávid FAZEKAS
1997
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
27/09/2018 to
16/11/2020
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s)

2,900
54350/20
27/11/2020
Zoltán ZABARI
1986
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
13/06/2019 to
02/07/2021
2 year(s) and 20 day(s)

2,700
1552/21
17/12/2020
László HERCZEG
1990
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
18/06/2019 to
05/11/2020
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)

Art.
5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 6-month review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention took place 34 days after the deadline. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon with delays of 2-3 months. 2,500
3956/21
11/12/2020
Marcell Ercsin CSINIK
1990
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
18/12/2017 to
19/03/2020
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

3,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.