Court
UN Committee against Torture
Decided
November 14, 2025
Docket
Communication No. 1121/2022
Citation
CAT/C/83/D/1121/2022
Judge
Committee against Torture, eighty-third session (10 to 28 November 2025).
Outcome
Dismissed
Disposition
The Committee decided “That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention”, having found that “the complainant had an available and effective remedy that he failed to exhaust” (paragraphs 7.6 and 8).
Nationality
National of Türkiye, born in 1975. He taught in state schools from 1996 to 2016 and “was dismissed on 1 September 2016 under Decree-Law No. 672, enacted under the state of emergency declared after the failed coup attempt, and was subsequently subjected to criminal proceedings” (paragraphs 1.1 and 2.1). He entered Germany on 7 December 2018 and applied for asylum on 2 January 2019 (paragraph 2.3).
The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees rejected his asylum application on 22 November 2019, and the Augsburg Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 28 April 2020 (paragraphs 2.3 and 2.5). His second application, based on documents from the Turkish police investigation file, was rejected on 10 March 2021, and the Augsburg court upheld that decision on 20 May 2021 (paragraphs 2.6, 2.7 and 2.10). He did not seek leave to appeal to the Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria, citing a lack of money and that court’s rejection of his earlier appeal (paragraph 2.15).
On 11 February 2022 the Committee asked Germany “not to deport the complainant to Türkiye while the communication was being considered by the Committee”, and on 29 May 2025 it “denied a request by the State Party to lift the interim measures” (paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3).
It then held that a request for leave to appeal “would have allowed the Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria to examine this new evidence”, that he had not produced “any proof of lack of financial resources or of an attempt to have sought legal aid”, and that “the mere fact of doubting the effectiveness of a remedy does not absolve the complainant from the obligation to exhaust” (paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5).
Caution
The Committee did not decide whether deportation to Türkiye would expose him to torture. The decision does not record whether he has since been deported, and the Coalition has not read a source that does.
Convention Against Torture
Non-refoulement
Deportation
Interim measures
Exhaustion of remedies
The court's own text
Public copy
Read in full in the English text from the OHCHR treaty body database on 8 November 2026.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.
← All decisions in the register