Violation Of The Right To Effective Remedies In Connection With The Prohibition Of Ill-Treatment Due To Conditions Of Detention In Custody
Events
The applicant was dismissed from his job as an auditor of the Court of Accounts and was detained for nine days within the scope of the Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure investigations. Applicant was then arrested and sent to a closed penal institution.
The applicant filed a full remedy action against the Ministry of Interior, claiming that he was kept in inadequate conditions in the detention centre. Administrative court dismissed the case on the grounds of jurisdiction on the grounds that detention and custody should be considered as a judicial law enforcement service and that the damage allegedly suffered in this process could be subject to a compensation lawsuit to be filed under the Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271. Upon the applicant’s appeal against this decision, the aforementioned decision was approved by the Regional Administrative Court and finalised.
Allegations
Applicant claimed that his right to effective remedy had been violated in connection with the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the conditions of detention in the detention centre.
The Court’s Assessment
The right to an effective remedy provides everyone who claims that a constitutional right has been violated with the opportunity to apply to administrative and judicial remedies that are reasonable, accessible and suitable to prevent the violation from occurring or continuing or to eliminate its consequences.
However, it is not sufficient for the legislation to provide for a remedy through which allegations of violation of fundamental rights and freedoms can be brought forward. The remedy in question must also be effective in practice.
On the other hand, since the right to effective remedy is complementary to other rights protected by the Constitution, it is not possible to claim that this right has been violated on its own. In order to assert the right to effective remedy, there must first be a defensible claim that other rights protected by the Constitution have been violated.
In the concrete case, the applicant directly applied to the Constitutional Court within thirty days, claiming that he was kept in conditions incompatible with human dignity in the detention centre after being taken out of custody. While the application had not yet been decided, the applicant filed a lawsuit for compensation against the Ministry of Interior.
It is established by the case-law of the Constitutional Court that complaints regarding the inadequacy of the conditions of detention in the detention centre are to be resolved by the administrative judicial authorities. Administrative courts are required to determine the conditions of the applicant’s detention, assess the veracity of the allegations in accordance with the principles of administrative law and make a decision on the merits of the matter according to the conclusion reached. In the concrete case, it is seen that the administrative court rejected the case on the grounds of jurisdiction, which is incompatible with the established case-law of the Constitutional Court, instead of investigating the conditions of detention that constitute the basis of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment and deciding whether the applicant’s damages should be compensated according to the result.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to effective remedy was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.