The applicant entered Turkey legally with his wife and three children. He is an Iraqi national who subsequently obtained a residence permit and started living in Turkey with his wife and three children.Entered Turkey legally. And subsequently obtained a residence permit and started living in Turkey. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation against a number of individuals, including the applicant, on charges of membership of an armed terrorist organization. And the governor’s office issued a deportation and administrative detention order against the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant’s residence permit was revoked due to the existence of the restriction and deportation order.
Thereupon, applicant filed a lawsuit before administrative court for annulment of the deportation order. In its interim decision, administrative court asked the respondent administration for outcome of the investigation and the basis of the restriction report concerning the applicant and Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The General Directorate of Security replied that applicant had been given a restraining order; the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office replied that investigation was ongoing. While administrative court rejected applicant’s case definitively. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided that there was no ground for prosecution.
ALLEGATİONS
Applicant alleged a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment and a related violation of the right to an effective remedy by reason of the decision to deport him to a country where he was in danger of being subjected to ill-treatment. Right to freedom of establishment as deportation was contrary to procedural safeguards.
COURT’S ASSESSMENT
A. Allegation of Violation of the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment
For rights protected by the prohibition of ill-treatment to be truly guaranteed, it is not enough for State not to engage in ill-treatment. The State must also protect individuals against acts of its agents and third parties that may constitute ill-treatment. If it is alleged that prohibition of ill-treatment will be violated in country to which foreigner will be sent as a result of the deportation, administrative and judicial authorities should thoroughly investigate whether there is a real risk of violation in the country. in question. However, State is not obliged to conduct an investigation in every deportation. For this obligation to arise, applicant must first establish a defensible claim.
In the present case, the applicant justified the risk he would face if he were repatriated on two grounds: First, that his father-in-law was a general loyal to the former leader of Iraq, and second, that he was an Iraqi himself. different sect. The applicant’s abstract allegation – not based on any documents or reports – that he was at risk because of his father-in-law was not serious enough to warrant an investigation.
On the other hand, applicant did not indicate in his written statement submitted pursuant to the administrative court’s interim decision or in his interview with the migration expert that he had experienced problems in his country because of his sect. When these two situations are examined and evaluated, it is understood that the applicant’s allegations that he will be subjected to ill-treatment if he is returned to his country are not of a nature and sufficiency worthy of investigation.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the allegation of violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment was inadmissible due to manifest groundlessness.
B. Allegation of Violation of the Right to Effective Application Regarding the Freedom of Settlement within the Scope of Procedural Safeguards in Deportation Procedures
After learning that the applicant’s name was on the list of members of a terrorist organization. The public authorities’ link between the applicant and the terrorist organization was not an unwarranted and unfounded assessment. Therefore, since the evaluations made by the administrative and judicial authorities regarding the deportation process in the light of the data they obtained were foreseeable, the deportation procedure has a legal basis.On the other hand, the reason for the imposition of the restriction on the basis of which the applicant was deported was included in the case file upon a letter from the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Although it is not reflected in the file that the applicant was aware of the said letter, the applicant did not request the administrative court to learn the data regarding the restriction record that constituted the grounds for deportation, did not make counterclaims that would deport them. did not present any evidence that was worthless or that should be evaluated in his favor. The applicant’s allegation that only the public authorities’ data were relied upon is therefore unfounded. The applicant’s arguments before the administrative court were limited to the fact that he had not committed any illegal acts and that there was no evidence against him in the criminal investigation.
Considering that the applicant was deported on the grounds that he posed a threat to public security, the fact that there was no investigation into his membership of a terrorist organization or that the criminal investigation opened in this context resulted in a decision of non-prosecution is of no importance for the annulment case. The administrative court ruled that the assessment of the public authorities that the applicant posed a threat to public security was in accordance with the law and that there was no violation of the guarantee of re-examination.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the claim of violation of the right to effective remedy in connection with the freedom of establishment was inadmissible for lack of clear grounds.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.