Taşiyan v. Türki̇Ye

Application no. 34988/20 Emre TAŞIYAN against Türkiye

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Stéphane Pisani , President , Juha Lavapuro, Hugh Mercer , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 July 2020,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr K. Öztürk, living in Istanbul.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)

The applicant complained that the cells in which he was detained at the Şanlıurfa Type T2 Closed Prison were overcrowded, and that he slept on a mattress on the floor, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. In their observations, the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the said prison between 2 February 2017 and 24 June 2021. The applicant’s complaint as communicated to the Government concerns the period between 2 February 2017 to 6 May 2021. The Government further provided a table regarding the physical conditions in the prison and submitted certain photographs of the facility.

According to the information provided by the Government, when the units were at maximum occupancy, the applicant had between 3 and 11 sq. m of personal living space, save for one day in one cell, when the space available to him fell to 2.4 sq. m. This calculation was made after deducting the sanitary facilities and the outdoor exercise yard from the total surface area. The applicant alleged that he had slept on a mattress on the floor in the cells. Having considered the information provided by the Government regarding the maximum and minimum number of detainees and the number of bunk beds, it appears that some of the detainees had to sleep on the floor. The Government have not submitted any records refuting the applicant’s allegation. In the light of these findings, the applicant’s allegation that he was required to sleep on the floor should be accepted as credible.

The Court next considers that it is not necessary to examine the various inadmissibility objections raised by the Government in the present application, as the present application is in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

The Court acknowledges that, to date, it has never found a violation of Article 3 solely because a detainee has been required to sleep on a mattress on the floor, except where the personal space afforded to the applicant in that situation was less than 3 sq. m and there were other unacceptable conditions of detention (see Yasak v. Türkiye [GC], no. 17389/20, § 243, 27 August 2024). In the present case, the applicant only complained about overcrowding and having to sleep on a mattress on the floor in the cells, without specifying how long that arrangement persisted. It is observed that, apart from one day when he had 2.4 sq. m of personal space, he had never been detained in less than 3 sq. m, and that he did not raise before the Court any other aggravating factors than sleeping on a mattress on the floor, that is to say, the applicant did not allege that the circumstance of sleeping on the floor negatively affected his sleep quality, or otherwise constituted a heavy or psychological burden on him (compare and contrast with Yasak , cited above, §§ 245-47, where the Grand Chamber relied on the aggravating factors present in that applicant’s case in particular his sleeping in a communal area with no privacy and having constant light).

Having regard to all of the available material, the Court finds that it cannot be established that the applicant suffered from severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 114, 20 October 2016). Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which he complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see, İlerde and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 35614/19 and 10 others, §§ 191-95, 5 December 2023 and Aydın and Others v. Türkiye (dec.) [Committee], nos. 24077/19 and 18 others, §§ 20-22, and §§ 23-25, 12 June 2025).

Therefore, the complaints should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2026.

Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphane Pisani Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m per inmate

Specific grievances

Turkish Constitutional Court Decision

34988/20

17/07/2020

Emre TAŞIYAN

1990

Kadir Öztürk

Istanbul

Şanlıurfa No. 2 T Type Closed Prison

02/02/2017 to

06/05/2021

4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 5 day(s)

32 inmate(s)

3 m²

2 toilet(s)

sleeping on the floor

Decision number and date,

2019/612

08/05/2020,

Notification date,

09/06/2020