CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s749B70D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sEF245E3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 20 September 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61689/16 A.N. against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are nationals of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Their initials, their dates of birth, the dates on which their applications were introduced, their application numbers, their nationalities, and the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix. On various dates they were charged with religious and politically motivated crimes, their pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia , and international search warrants were issued by the authorities. The Russian authorities arrested and detained the applicants under the above-mentioned search warrants. Subsequently they took final decisions to remove (that is to say to extradite or expel) the applicants to their respective countries of origin, despite consistent claims that in the event of their removal they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. On various dates the applicants’ requests under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be removed from Russia for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It was further decided that the applicants’ identities would not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4) and that the applications should be granted priority treatment (Rule 41). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that they would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to their countries of origin. The applicants in the cases of Z.S. v. Russia , no. 20421/17 and B.A.   v.   Russia , no. 37702/17 complain that the length of the appeal review for the orders extending their detention did not comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 of the Convention. The applicant in the case of B.A. v. Russia , no. 37702/17 further complains that: (1) his detention pending expulsion was not compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention in terms of the foreseeability of the length of such a detention; (2) he did not have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion; and (3) his right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention would be breached if he is removed to Uzbekistan. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Would the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to their respective countries of origin?   2.     In the domestic proceedings, did the relevant national authorities adequately assess the applicants’ claims that they would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to their respective countries of origin? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Z.S. v. Russia , no. 20421/17 and B.A. v. Russia , no. 37702/17   3.     Did the length of the appeal review in respect of the orders of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow issued on 22 September 2016 and the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow issued on 9 November 2016 comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 of the Convention?   B.A. v. Russia , no. 37702/17   4.     Having regard to the Court’s conclusion in the case of Azimov v.   Russia (no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013), was the applicant’s detention pending expulsion compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention in terms of the foreseeability of the length of such detention? 5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? 6.     In the light of the applicant’s claim and the evidence that has been submitted, would his right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention be breached if he were to be removed to Uzbekistan? In the domestic proceedings, did the relevant national authorities adequately assess the applicants’ claims in this regard?     APPENDIX No. Name, date of birth, nationality,   application no., lodged on,   represented by   Dates of detention and release Removal proceedings (type, progress, outcome) Refugee and/or temporary asylum proceedings Other relevant information 1. A.N. v. Russia 3 May 1987 Tajikistan   App. no. 61689/16 26 October 2016   Daria TRENINA Eleonora DAVIDYAN Kirill ZHARINOV   Detention pending extradition   05 November 2015 – arrested and subsequently detained 4 November 2016 – release due to expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention   5 November 2016 – arrest 7 November 2016 - release   Extradition proceedings   13 October 2014 – international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities   16 October 2014 – detention order in absentia issued by Tajik authorities   12 November 2015 – extradition request on charges of extremism   18 March 2016 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office   1 November 2016 – extradition order upheld by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation       26 October 2016 – interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal 2. Z.S. v. Russia 24 December 1984 Uzbekistan     App. no. 20421/17 16 March 2017   Daria TRENINA Eleonora DAVIDYAN Kirill ZHARINOV   Detention pending extradition   25 March 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained   22 September 2016 – prolongation of detention by the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow 26 September 2016 – appeal against the prolongation order 17 October 2016 – order upheld by the Moscow City Court   25 March 2017 – release due to expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention   Extradition proceedings   2 November 2015 – international search warrant issued by Uzbek authorities   9 November 2015 – detention order in absentia issued by Uzbek authorities   21 April 2016 – extradition request on charges of extremism   6 December 2016 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office   21 March 2017 – extradition order upheld by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   Refugee status proceedings   30 June 2016 – refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities 8 February 2017 – refusal upheld by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court   Temporary asylum proceedings   12 April 2017 – application for temporary asylum submitted by post   17 March 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal 3. Z.A. v. Russia 2 February 1991 Uzbekistan   App. no. 23188/17 27 March 2017   Illarion VASILYEV   Detention pending extradition   29 March 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained 29 March 2017 – released due to expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention   Extradition proceedings   16 October 2015 – international search warrant issued by Uzbek authorities   16 October 2015 – detention order in absentia issued by Uzbek authorities   19 April 2016 – extradition request on charges of extremism   26 December 2016 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office   20 April 2017 – extradition order upheld by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Refugee status proceedings   1 August 2016 – refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities   Temporary asylum proceedings   1 August 2016 – refusal of temporary asylum by the migration authorities   29 March 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal 4. B.A. v. Russia 26 August 1985 Uzbekistan   App. no. 37702/17 29 May 2017   Daria TRENINA Eleonora DAVIDYAN Kirill ZHARINOV   Detention pending extradition   12 May 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained   9 November 2016 – prolongation of detention by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow 13 November 2016 – appeal against the prolongation order 31 January 2017 – order upheld by the Moscow City Court   10 May 2017 – released due to expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention   Detention pending expulsion   10 May 2017 – arrested and subsequently detained 12 May 2017 – escaped from the courthouse 16 May 2017 – arrested again and detained Extradition proceedings   22 May 2015 – international search warrant issued by Uzbek authorities   22 May 2015 – detention order in absentia issued by Uzbek authorities   Expulsion proceedings   2 June 2017 – the applicant’s expulsion upheld by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court   Refugee status proceedings   21 October 2016 and 11 January 2017 – refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities   6 and 18 March 2017 – appeals against the decision; proceedings are pending   2014 – the applicant starting cohabitating with Mrs M., a Russian national 10 September 2016 – the applicant’s and Mrs M’s son was born   30 May 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal