CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION Application no. 37478/16 A and Others against Serbia lodged on 30 June 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants, a Libyan family, have been temporarily residing in Serbia since 2010 on various grounds. In 2015 the Ministry of Internal Affairs cancelled their temporary residence permits on national security grounds, ordered them to voluntarily leave Serbia and barred them from entering or residing in Serbian territory until 2025. Neither factual grounds nor evidence were presented to the applicants. Subsequently, their asylum requests were rejected because they were on the list of individuals whose presence on Serbian territory posed a threat to national security and they allegedly intended to misuse asylum proceedings to avoid their deportation to the country of origin, given that they had visited Libya twice in 2013 and 2014 and had not faced any kind of safety problems or unfavorable position. In the course of the proceedings before the Administrative Court, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) in Serbia sent a letter of notice in order to draw the court’s attention to the “UNHCR Position on Returns to Libya” and to ask it to reconsider the previous negative asylum decisions accordingly. The applicants are represented before the Court by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, a NGO based in Belgrade. They face forcible return to Libya. None of the applicants have been placed in detention or undergone any criminal proceedings. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that their removal to Libya would expose them to a real risk of being subjected to death or ill ‑ treatment on account of their political affiliation. The applicants particularly rely on the state of general insecurity in Libya and their specific status and medical condition. The applicants also complain that they do not have an effective domestic remedy whereby they could challenge their threatened deportation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicants be regarded, in the light of the currently available information about the general situation in Libya and about their personal circumstances, as being at real risk of ill ‑ treatment or death if expelled to Libya (see mutatis mutandis , Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   27765/09, §§ 123-136, ECHR 2012; A. v. the Netherland s, no. 4900/06, §§ 141-151, 20 July 2010; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 124 ‑ 27, ECHR 2008, and NA. v. the United Kingdom , no. 25904/07, §§ 109 ‑ 17, 17   July 2008)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their allegations that they would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if they were to be expelled to Libya, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the asylum authorities scrutinise whether there were substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of ill ‑ treatment under Articles 2 and 3 before taking the decision to expel them (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom , 15 November 1996, § 151, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ V)? Could the applicants challenge the national security allegations against them in view of the concealment of the facts and evidence in this connection? Lastly, do the administrative remedies suspend the enforcement of the expulsion order in general (see Jabari v. Turkey , no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII)?   The Government are invited to submit information and all relevant documents issued by the Serbian authorities as regards the applicants’ expulsion and the examination of their applications for asylum.