The fact that detention in a removal centre is lawful does not mean that the conditions in the centre are lawful in every case. Access to health care, personal space, hygiene, access to the outdoors, meetings with a lawyer and the protection of children are separate safeguards. Correcting conditions, lifting detention and obtaining compensation for past harm are different claims that serve different purposes.
In the İbrahim Muhammed Ali judgment, the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) identified a structural deficiency in the effective remedy available for correcting the conditions of ongoing detention. The judgment was delivered on July 8, 2025 and published on February 26, 2026. This distinction between dates, and the question of which aspect of which right the Court found to have been violated, matter for framing the application strategy correctly.
Which rights are protected in the centre?
Access to health care, communication and legal assistance
Article 59 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection provides that urgent and basic health care services are to be provided free of charge where the foreign national cannot cover their cost. The person must be able to reach and meet their relatives, a notary, their legal representative and their lawyer, and to use telephone services. The facilities for meeting visitors and the representatives of the institutions named in the article are also within the scope of the safeguards.
As regards the right to health, the mere existence of an infirmary is not a sufficient yardstick. What matters is when a particular person's request for an examination was received, whether treatment was administered, whether medication was supplied and whether a referral to a specialist was delayed. It cannot be said that every delay automatically amounts to ill-treatment; the nature of the illness, the effect of the delay and the measures taken are assessed.
Access to a lawyer is the means of challenging the lawfulness of detention and of protecting the other short time limits. Where a request for a meeting is refused or is in practice not met, the date of the request, the response given and its effect on the preparation of the application should be recorded. Requests for information from relatives should not be confused with a lawyer’s powers over the file and to hold meetings.
Children, families and special needs
The Law provides for the best interests of the child to be taken into account, for families to be accommodated separately, and for measures to be taken so that children can benefit from education. The same physical condition may not affect a healthy adult, a young child, a pregnant person and a person with a serious illness in the same way.
The assessment is not limited to the general facilities of the centre. Age, disability, trauma, care needs and family relationships are addressed on an individualized basis. These factors may matter both for the adequacy of the conditions and for the feasibility of alternatives to administrative detention.
Is every adverse condition regarded as ill-treatment?
Assessment as a whole and in light of duration
The prohibition of ill-treatment in Article 17 of the Constitution is absolute. However, for a condition to be assessed under this prohibition, it must reach the necessary level of severity in the case as a whole. The length of detention, personal space, access to the outdoors, hygiene, sleeping facilities, privacy and health effects are considered together.
A single photograph or a general centre report does not always show in which conditions a particular person stayed on which dates. Conversely, a short period of detention does not by itself make a very severe condition insignificant. A legal assessment can be made once the allegation has been made concrete by reference to duration and personal impact.
The limits of the personal space calculation
In the İbrahim Muhammed Ali judgment, the AYM explained that falling below 3 m² per person in multi-occupancy rooms creates a strong presumption of a violation. The circumstances capable of rebutting the presumption are construed narrowly; the reduction being short-term and minor, sufficient freedom of movement outside the room and the adequacy of the other conditions are considered together. In the range of 3–4 m², it is assessed whether the space is combined with other adverse conditions (§ 46).
This yardstick does not mean that all conditions are deemed adequate once 3 m² per person is provided. Beds, ventilation, natural light, toilet and bathroom privacy, health care and access to the outdoors are examined separately. Under the calculation approach set out in the judgment, the bathroom, toilet and ventilation yard are not added to the living space; the area occupied by furniture is included in the calculation. It should be clear for which space and which date the measurement was taken.
What did the İbrahim Muhammed Ali pilot judgment change?
The subject of the violation: an effective remedy capable of correcting conditions
The AYM’s judgment of July 8, 2025, Application No. 2025/10406, concerns an applicant who continued to be held at the Şanlıurfa Removal Centre. The Court stated that the information and documents in the file were not sufficient for a direct examination of ill-treatment as regards the physical conditions, but accepted that the complaints were arguable (§ 47).
The finding of a violation concerns the right to an effective remedy in connection with the prohibition of ill-treatment. It was found that there was no effective remedy capable of rapidly examining ongoing conditions and, where necessary, having them corrected. The possibility of applying to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) to challenge the lawfulness of detention was not regarded as sufficient to cure this separate deficiency (§§ 52–57).
A pilot judgment aims to notify the legislature of the structural problem and to bring about an effective mechanism. It was explained that the remedy to be established must be able to examine conditions, issue corrective and enforceable decisions, operate with sufficient speed and provide appropriate redress (§§ 92–95).
The judgment did not declare all detention unlawful
In the same application, it was decided that the right to personal liberty and security had not been violated in terms of the lawfulness of the detention and the notification of the reasons. The allegation of a risk of ill-treatment in the event of deportation was found inadmissible because remedies had not been exhausted. Accordingly, automatic release or annulment of a deportation decision for every foreign national cannot be inferred from the pilot judgment.
The non-pecuniary damages of 115,000 TL awarded to the applicant are likewise not a payment tariff applicable to every resident of a centre. The judgment concerns redress for the violation of the right to an effective remedy in the specific application. The claim for pecuniary damage was not accepted for lack of documents.
The four-month postponement is not an application deadline
In the judgment, the examination of certain individual applications of a similar nature was postponed for four months from publication in the Official Gazette. Since the publication date is February 26, 2026, the period stated in the judgment expired on June 26, 2026. This does not mean that individuals should postpone their own applications for four months or that their statutory time limits are suspended.
As of October 14, 2026, no separately verified extension, and no regulation establishing the specific mechanism required by the pilot judgment, has been identified in the sources consulted for this work. This limited finding is not an absolute determination that there has been no change in the legislation. In a specific application, the latest regulations and AYM announcements should be checked again; the expiry of the calendar period does not mean that all files will be concluded immediately.
How is an application file built while detention continues?
First step: clarifying the problem and the correction sought
The request should be framed to match the condition: for example, an examination or referral to hospital, supply of medication, suitable accommodation with the family, an accessibility arrangement, a meeting with a lawyer, or the remedying of a specific hygiene problem. The acknowledgment of receipt of the application submitted to the centre management and the relevant migration authority is kept; if there is an oral reply, its date and content are recorded.
These applications can bring the problem to the administration’s attention and later help prove it. However, the fact that a complaint petition can be filed does not show that the independent, rapid and binding corrective remedy sought in the pilot judgment exists. It should not be assumed that administrative complaints of themselves suspend the time limit for an action or an individual application.
Second step: linking the evidence to the person, place and date
| Complaint | Useful record | Connection to be explained |
|---|---|---|
| Overcrowding | Room information, number of persons, dates of stay, existing measurements | How much space the person used during which period |
| No access to treatment | Examination requests, report, prescription, referral and medication records | The effect of the delay on health |
| Inability to meet a lawyer | Meeting request and response, visit records | Which application preparation was affected |
| Hygiene and privacy | Dated complaints, minutes, lawfully obtained images | Continuity of the problem and its personal impact |
| Special needs of a child | Age, education, care and health documents | The concrete arrangement needed for the child’s best interests |
Camera footage, health records and entry records may not always be in the person’s hands. In that case, it is stated which record should be requested from which authority, and a request is made that the records be preserved so that they are not lost. The health information and images of other persons should not be disclosed unnecessarily in the file or to the public.
Third step: separating detention complaints from conditions complaints
Where it is claimed that detention is unnecessary or unlawful, the criminal judgeship of peace route under Article 57(6) is used. Health and other special circumstances may also be relevant to the proportionality of detention. However, it should not be assumed that the judgeship is a general supervisory authority that has arrangements made in the centre for every complaint about conditions; the problem identified by the pilot judgment arises precisely in this distinction.
In an application to the AYM, it is explained which right was violated, by which event and because of which inadequate means of application. Exhaustion of ordinary remedies and the time-limit conditions are assessed according to the specific complaint. The general rule is thirty days from the exhaustion of remedies or, where no effective remedy is provided, from learning of the violation. An allegation of a continuing violation should not be regarded as a guarantee that the time limit is unlimited.
Where there is serious and current danger, a request for an interim measure under Article 73 of the AYM Rules of Procedure can be separately reasoned. The personal nature of the danger, its urgency and the supporting documents are important. Requesting a measure does not of itself secure admission or release. The application form and its annexes should show the person’s own situation rather than a general criticism of the centre.
What distinction is made after leaving the centre?
If the person has left the centre before the individual application, compensation for past harm comes into play, unlike a request for correction of the conditions in the same place for the future. In the İbrahim Muhammed Ali judgment, the AYM explained the importance of the compensation route, in particular the full remedy action (tam yargı davası), in this situation (§ 50).
By contrast, the release of a person who was in the centre on the date of the application while the AYM examination is pending does not of itself cure the lack of an effective preventive remedy on the date of application (§ 56). This shows why the date of application and the date of release must be recorded carefully.
Compensation based on the allegation that detention was unlawful from the outset and compensation arising from poor conditions are not the same legal cause. For the former, the K.N. pilot judgment and the debates on jurisdiction must also be taken into account. If the nature of an administrative act is taken as the basis for the conditions claim, the prior application and time-limit regime in Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) is assessed. Preparing a single general compensation petition without separating the types of claims can obscure important issues.
Conclusion
The protection of rights in a removal centre cannot be reduced to a request for release. Correcting an ongoing condition, reviewing the lawfulness of detention and redressing past harm must be addressed separately. The İbrahim Muhammed Ali pilot judgment has clearly revealed the need for an effective corrective remedy. A strong application combines this principle with the person’s dated, documented and concrete needs.
Related articles: Guide to applications for those with a relative in a removal centre; Six months of administrative detention, extension and monthly review; Alternative obligations to administrative detention; Redress and compensation after unlawful administrative detention; Objection to an administrative detention decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the date of the pilot judgment February 26, 2026?
That date is the date of publication in the Official Gazette. The İbrahim Muhammed Ali judgment was delivered on July 8, 2025, and its application number is 2025/10406.
Does this judgment give everyone a right to release?
No. The judgment found a violation of the right to an effective remedy in connection with conditions. No violation was found in the same file as regards the lawfulness of detention.
If there are 3 m² per person, are all conditions adequate?
No. Personal space is an important yardstick; health, beds, hygiene, access to the outdoors and privacy are also assessed.
Does complaining to the centre management suspend all time limits?
No. The legal route to which the complaint belongs and its effect on the time limit must be determined separately. Automatic protection of time limits cannot be assumed for general administrative applications.
Does a later release affect an AYM application?
The effect depends on whether detention was continuing on the date of application and on the right asserted. The lack of a remedy for correcting ongoing conditions at the time of application is not regarded as cured of itself by a later release.
Can every applicant receive 115,000 TL?
No. This amount is redress for the specific violation in the İbrahim Muhammed Ali application. In other files, the violation, harm, claim and redress are assessed separately.
Sources
- Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, Articles 57–59. Full text PDF.
- AYM, İbrahim Muhammed Ali [Grand Chamber (GK)], Application No. (B. No): 2025/10406, July 8, 2025; Official Gazette (RG) February 26, 2026/33180, in particular §§ 41–57, 69–83, 92–97 and the operative part. Official citation; judgment PDF.
- Law No. 6216, Articles 45, 47 and 50. AYM legislation page.
- Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, Articles 64, 73 and 75. Text.
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure, Articles 2, 7, 12 and 13. Consolidated text.