CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juillet 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 19 July 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 40831/16 A.M.K. against Russia lodged on 19 July 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant is a Syrian national. On 28 September 2013 the applicant arrived to Russia on a business visa and went into hiding. On 24 May 2016 the police arrested him in Moscow and brought him to a court on the charge of illegal residence in Russia. On the same day the Preobrazhenskiy District Court in Moscow found him guilty and charged. It fined the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles and ordered that he be forcibly removed from Russia. Pending removal, he was to be detained in the centre for detention of aliens in Moscow. On 14 July 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the expulsion order on appeal and it became immediately enforceable. As of the date of filing the application, a copy of that appeal decision was not yet available.   QUESTIONS 1.     Will there be a violation of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s removal to Syria? In particular: (a)     Does the current situation in Syria justify the finding that a removal to this country is incompatible with Article 2 or 3 of the Convention (see L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, 15   October 2015; see also Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos.   8319/07 and 11449/07, §§ 241-50 and §§   265-92, 28 June 2011)? (b)     Are commercial flights available from Russia to Syria? What would be the practical arrangements for a foreigner’s removal from Russia to Syria? (c)     Are there sufficient guarantees in place for envisaging the alternative to a domestic flight and for averting a risk of ill ‑ treatment and a risk of damage to the applicant’s physical integrity upon arriving at Damascus, then in transit and upon arriving in his hometown of Aleppo (see Sufi and Elmi , cited above, §§   265-66, with further references)?   2.     Did the applicant have effective remedies for his complaint about a potential risk to his life or health in case of removal, as required under Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, do any provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences require the courts (i) to carry out a thorough examination of a risk of death or ill-treatment, in line with the Court’s relevant standards and principles, and (ii) to grant adequate redress on account of substantial grounds confirming such a risk, in particular where a court has no discretion in issuing the expulsion order under Article   18.8 §   3 of the CAO?   3.     The respondent Government are invited to refer to specific provisions of domestic law and provide examples of the case-law of domestic courts as regards the application of Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO in the light of the arguments relating to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.