Ferdi Colak v Government of the Republic of Turkiye

Where a possible retrial may require an extradited person to leave the prison covered by an existing assurance, the Article 3 risk can be addressed by an assurance permitting video-link attendance from that prison and guaranteeing at least four square metres of personal space in any alternative prison used for the trial. If the minimum-space guarantee applies wherever the person is held, the state need not identify the alternative prison in advance. Once an assurance removes the substantial grounds for believing that detention will breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, extradition is compatible with Convention rights.

Ferdi Colak appealed against a District Judge Tempia order sending Türkiye’s extradition request to the Secretary of State. The District Judge had found extradition compatible with Article 3 on the basis that Mr Colak would be held at Yalvaç prison with at least four square metres of personal space. After the Divisional Court’s decision in Türkiye v Demir, Uckak and Sahin [2024] EWHC 2351 (Admin), Türkiye provided updated assurances, but they did not clearly address detention arrangements during a possible retrial. Leave to appeal was limited to whether the assurances had to cover that retrial risk. During the appeal, Türkiye gave a further assurance concerning video-link attendance from Yalvaç and personal space if Mr Colak were held elsewhere. The central issue was whether that assurance removed the Article 3 risk.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The appeal concerned the order sending the extradition request to the Secretary of State. Before the further assurance was given, there was a real risk that a retrial could require Mr Colak to be held at another prison without any guarantee of sufficient personal space. There was no guarantee that he would attend by video link, how long a retrial might last, or what cell space would be available ([31]-[33]).

2. In Mursic v Croatia (2017) 65 EHRR 1, the court’s stated Article 3 framework recognised that prison conditions may breach the prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment where in-cell personal space is insufficient ([7]). The Divisional Court in Türkiye v Demir, Uckak and Sahin [2024] EWHC 2351 (Admin) had required an assurance addressing Mr Uckak’s trial attendance and any transfer from Yalvaç, including at least four square metres of personal space in another prison ([10]). Mr Colak’s case was not materially distinguishable, so the same assurance was necessary to address the retrial risk ([31]-[33]).

3. The assurance provided on 26 June 2026 met that requirement. If Mr Colak remained at Yalvaç, it was unnecessary to rely on the new assurance. If he had to move during the retrial, the assurance guaranteed at least four square metres of personal space. The state did not need to identify the alternative prison in advance because the guarantee applied whichever prison was used ([38]-[41]).

4. The further arguments concerning mental health and the risk of ill-treatment fell outside the limited grant of leave. In any event, Mr Colak had not shown substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of ill-treatment during any temporary detention away from Yalvaç for the retrial ([42]). The ground of appeal therefore fell away and the appeal was dismissed ([43]-[44]).

1. High Court (Administrative Court) Fordham J granted limited leave to appeal. Johnson J dismissed the appeal: [2026] EWHC 1839 (Admin) .
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court District Judge Tempia sent the extradition case to the Secretary of State on 30 April 2021 after finding extradition compatible with Article 3.