Introduction
This study presents a literature analysis regarding the legal status of foreign nationals held under administrative detention in removal centers (RC). The study examines topics such as the duration and extension of administrative detention, the fundamental rights of foreign nationals held in centers, alternative measures to administrative detention, and the notification procedure for decisions, based on academic and legal resources provided. The study aims to reveal the differences between legal regulations and problems encountered in practice.
1. Duration of Detention in Removal Centers, Extension, and Evaluation
The literature indicates that the duration of administrative detention is subject to specific and strict rules under the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK).
Maximum Period and Monthly Assessment: Administrative detention is, as a rule, a restriction of liberty that can be applied for a specific period. The period of administrative detention applied due to deportation procedures cannot exceed six months. During this period, the governorship assesses ex officio each month whether the administrative detention needs to be continued. If facts emerge indicating that administrative detention is no longer necessary, the detention can be terminated without waiting for the assessment period. This regulation is an important procedural safeguard for the protection of personal liberty.
Extension of the Period: The extension of administrative detention beyond six months is an exceptional circumstance and is solely attributed to reasons stemming from the foreigner themselves. It emphasizes that the YUKK (Foreigners and International Protection Law) contains a more favorable regulation on this matter than the Return Directive: According to the YUKK, if deportation procedures cannot be completed due to reasons stemming from the administration or the representation of the foreigner’s country of nationality, extension of administrative detention beyond the sixth month is not possible. The YUKK has only specified the foreigner’s lack of cooperation and failure to provide correct information and documents as reasons for extension. This clearly demonstrates that delays by the administration or third countries cannot be used against the foreigner.
Special Situation for International Protection Applicants: For foreigners applying for international protection, the administrative detention period is limited to thirty days and cannot be extended.
2. Fundamental Rights in Removal Centers and Problems in Practice
The YUKK (Foreigners and International Protection Law) and related legislation grant extensive rights to foreigners held in Removal Centers (GGM). However, the literature indicates significant differences between legal regulations and their implementation.
Legally Recognized Rights: Article 59 of the YUKK thoroughly regulates the services to be provided in Removal Centers (GGM) and the rights of foreigners held there. These rights are listed similarly in various sources:
Health Services: “Emergency and basic health services, the cost of which cannot be covered by the foreigner, are provided free of charge.
Access to Lawyer and Legal Representative: “The opportunity to access and communicate with relatives, a notary public, a legal representative, and a lawyer, and access to telephone services” is provided. This right also includes legal aid services within the framework of the provisions of the Attorneyship Law for those who cannot afford attorney fees.
Meeting with Family, Visitors, and Consulate: “The foreigner is provided with the opportunity to meet with visitors, the consular official of their country of nationality, and an official of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Persons with Special Needs and Children: The best interest of children is observed, families and unaccompanied children are accommodated in separate areas, and measures are taken to ensure children benefit from education.
Rights Violations Encountered in Practice: The literature reveals that despite legal guarantees, serious problems are experienced in practice. Reports from bar associations and civil society organizations confirm this situation.
Hindrance of Access to a Lawyer: According to the Bar Associations Workshop Final Report, “lawyers’ rights to obtain information and examine documents are being obstructed, and they are unable to hold confidential meetings with their clients.”
Physical and Human Conditions: It is stated that Removal Centers (GGM) house foreigners beyond their capacity, hygiene problems are experienced, and the rooms are below CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture) standards.
Lack of Interpreters and Other Rights: Insufficient interpreter support, restricted phone rights, and limited family visits are also other significant problems encountered in practice.
3. Release from the Removal Center and Alternative Measures
Administrative detention is a measure that should be applied in accordance with the principle of last resort (ultima ratio). For this reason, the law provides for obligations alternative to administrative detention.
Release and Alternatives: Administrative detention can be terminated by a decision of the Directorate General of Migration Management or a Criminal Judgeship of Peace. The administration can decide to release asylum seekers by imposing obligations such as residing at a specific address or reporting. Some alternative measures in practice include release on bail or security, reporting obligation, obligation to reside in a specific place, release under supervision, electronic monitoring, and house arrest. It has been determined that these measures are “less costly and more humane, and more compatible with human rights” compared to administrative detention.
4. Notification of Decisions, Language and Procedural Safeguards
Proper notification of decisions regarding deportation and administrative detention is vital for the foreigner to exercise their right to defense and effective remedy.
Notification Procedure and Content: In accordance with Article 53/2 of the LFIP, the deportation decision, along with its justifications, must be notified to the foreigner, their legal representative, or their lawyer. The notification must also specify “how foreigners can exercise their right to object to the decision and their other legal rights and obligations during this process.” If the notification is not carried out in accordance with the procedure, the lawsuit filing period does not commence.
Requirement for Notification in an Understandable Language: One of the most critical safeguards is that the information must be provided in a language the foreigner understands. This requirement is also stipulated in Article 5/2 of the ECHR. The foreigner is not provided with a copy of the notified document regarding the decision’s outcome, its justifications, the right to object, and the objection period, and these matters are not even communicated in a language they understand.
Consequences of Irregular Notification: It is emphasized that the notification process is not a mere formality but a means to ensure the content is understood. In the case of Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, the primary reason for the ECtHR’s finding of a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the ECHR, on the grounds that “the individuals were not informed why they were being detained,” was their not being informed in a language they understood. Similarly, the Council of State also found a verbal deportation notification to be unlawful.
Conclusion
The presented literature shows that Turkey, along with the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (YUKK), has introduced comprehensive legal safeguards regarding administrative detention in foreigners’ law. The maximum period of administrative detention has been limited to 6 months, its extension made subject to strict conditions, and its regular review mandated every month. Foreigners held in Removal Centers (GGM) have been granted fundamental rights such as access to a lawyer, healthcare, and family visits. Furthermore, more humane alternative measures to administrative detention are also available.
However, a significant gap between the legal framework and its implementation is also a common finding in the literature. Specifically, issues such as the de facto denial of access to a lawyer, poor physical conditions in Removal Centers (GGM), lack of interpreters, and the failure to properly and clearly notify decisions significantly hinder foreigners from exercising their rights to a fair trial and effective remedy. This situation leads to fundamental human rights violations, as also identified in ECHR jurisprudence. Therefore, addressing the shortcomings in practice and strengthening oversight mechanisms are critically important for the implementation of existing legal safeguards. A paper suggestion.
Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?
For foreigners held in removal centers (especially in Tuzla Removal Center and other centers in Istanbul) to effectively exercise their rights, it is vital that the process is conducted in accordance with the law. However, rights violations, irregular notifications, and barriers to accessing a lawyer encountered in practice severely limit foreigners’ ability to seek justice on their own. For this reason, the support of an experienced **lawyer** in the field ensures the strongest possible action in favor of the foreigner, both in monitoring the administrative detention period and during appeal and litigation processes.
Especially considering the problems experienced in removal centers in and around Istanbul, obtaining expert legal support constitutes a critical guarantee for the **protection of foreigners’ rights to liberty and security**.
