CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 5 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no.   21535/16 S.S. against Russia lodged on 6 April 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr S.S., is a Syrian national who was born in 1992 in Aleppo and currently lives in the Moscow Region. The Court granted the applicant anonymity of its own motion (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). He is represented before the Court by Mr M.V. Kushpel, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 August 2014 the applicant entered Russia on a single entry visa. He has been in Russia since then, because he fears for his life if returned to Syria. On 2 October 2014 he applied for temporary asylum. On 17 February 2015 he was notified of a decision by the Federal Migration Service (“FMS”) of 22 December 2014 dismissing his application. From February 2015 onwards the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to lodge a new application for temporary asylum. His requests were refused for various formal reasons. On 26 November 2015 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and taken to the Mitino district police department. On the same day the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) found him guilty of an administrative offence under Article 18.8 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (failure to leave Russia before the expiry of a visa), sentenced him to a fine of 5,000 roubles (RUB), and ordered his administrative removal from Russia. The applicant was ordered to leave Russia on his own, under the supervision of the head of the Moscow Mitino district division of the FMS. On 28 December 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, stating that the military conflict in Syria was not sufficient grounds to exclude the applicant’s administrative removal. On 26 April 2016 the applicant was notified of the FMS decision of 26   August 2015 to grant him temporary asylum until 26 August 2016, in view of the risk of danger to his life in the event of his return to Syria. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that his removal to Syria would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the ongoing military conflict. In particular, he argues that he would be called up for active military service and that the situation in Aleppo, where he comes from, is particularly dangerous.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the enforceable administrative removal order issued by the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow on 26 November 2015 and upheld by the Moscow City Court on 28 December 2015, will there be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of the applicant’s removal from Russia to Syria (see L.M. and Others v. Russia , nos.   40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, 15   October 2015)? Did the domestic courts thoroughly examine the risk of ill-treatment in the event of the applicant’s removal, in line with the relevant Convention standards and principles?   2.     Does the decision by the Federal Migration Service to grant the applicant temporary asylum have a suspensive or other legal effect vis ‑ à-vis the enforceable administrative removal order? Do a pending application for temporary asylum and a pending judicial review in respect of a refusal to grant such asylum both have a suspensive effect vis-à-vis the enforceable administrative removal order?