CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border: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 } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 11 October 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 65122/17 S.B. against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) 1.     The applicants are Tajik nationals. They are represented by Ms   D.   Trenina, Ms   E.   Davidyan and Mr K. Zharinov, lawyers practising in Moscow. The particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the annexed table. 2.     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 Tajik authorities. 3.     The Russian authorities arrested and detained the applicants. Subsequently they took final decisions to deport the applicants to Tajikistan, despite the claims that in the event of their removal from Russia they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 4.     On 4 January and 5 February 2018 the applicants’ requests under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court were granted in the applications nos. 340/18 and 6646/18 respectively. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be deported to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 5.     It was 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) and confidentiality (Rule 33). 6.     On various dates indicated in the appended table the applicants were deported to Tajikistan. COMPLAINTS 7.     The applicants complain that the Russian authorities exposed them to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention by deporting them to Tajikistan. 8.     The applicants in all three cases further complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article   3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 9.     Lastly, the applicants in the application nos. 340/18 and 6646/18 complain about their deportation in breach of the interim measures indicated by the Court, which resulted in a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the Russian authorities expose the applicants to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention by deporting them to Tajikistan?   2.     In the application nos. 340/18 and 6646/18 were the applicants’ deportation in breach of the interim measures indicated by the Court? Has there been accordingly a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention?   3.     In the domestic proceedings, did the competent 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 deported to Tajikistan?   4.     With regard to deportation proceedings did the applicants have at their disposal an effective administrative or judicial domestic remedy for their complaints under Article   3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Did this remedy in principle and in the applicants’ cases afford the applicants due consideration of their complaints? Did it provide for an automatic suspensive effect in respect of the applicants’ transfer to Tajikistan?   5.     The parties are invited to provide the Court with a detailed description of the functioning of the deportation mechanism in Russia supplied, where relevant and appropriate, with references to legislative provisions and domestic practice. APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s initials Date of birth   Detention Removal proceedings Refugee status / Temporary asylum proceedings Other relevant information   65122/17 05/09/2017 S.B. 13/04/1989   Detention pending extradition 3 March 2017 – arrested and subsequently detained 2 September 2017 – released   Detention pending expulsion 2 September 2017 – arrest and subsequent detention 4 September 2017 - deportation to Tajikistan Extradition proceedings 4 April 2016 – international search warrant and detention order in absentia issued by Tajik authorities 10 April 2017 – extradition request on charges of extremism (faxed on the above date to the Russian authorities, dated 12 July 2016)   Expulsion proceedings 13 June 2016 - the applicant’s stay in Russia declared undesirable by the Ministry of Justice (the applicant was allegedly not informed of it, the applicant’s representative learnt about it on 27 October 2017) 1 September 2017 – deportation ordered by the migration authority of Moscow 4 September 2017 - deportation to Tajikistan   Refugee status proceedings 14 June 2017 – asylum request June 2017 - the applicant was allegedly prevented from issuing a power of attorney for his representative in the administrative proceedings without authorisation granted by a prosecutor   4 September 2017 - the applicant’s representatives were allegedly misinformed about the hearing on the applicant’s expulsion in Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow   4 September 2017 - the applicant was deported to Tajikistan   9 November 2017 - the applicant was convicted of extremism and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment   15 December 2017 - the applicant was transferred to a penal facility to serve his sentence   5 and 27 February 2018 - the applicant’s lawyer in Tajikistan was denied visits to the applicant, his request for medical examination was dismissed     340/18 04/01/2017 I. M. 09/05/1990   Detention pending expulsion 22 December 2017 – arrest and subsequent detention pending deportation 20 March 2018 - the applicant released by the Sovetskiy District Court of Tambov due to adjournment of the administrative proceedings 18 April 2018 - the Tambov Regional Court annulled the lower court’s decision and ordered reconsideration 27 April 2018 - the Sovetskiy District Court of Tambov ordered the search and detention of the applicant 2 June 2018 - arrest in Moscow and transfer to Tambov 4 June 2018 - the Tambov Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision of 27 April 2018 2 August 2018 - Sovetskiy District Court of Tambov refused to extend detention and the applicant was released 2-3 August 2018 - according to the applicant he was arrested by the FSB officers immediately after his release and put on the flight to Tajikistan (under a false name) Extradition proceedings 31 November 2015 – indictment and international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities 11 March 2016 - detention order in absentia issued by Tajik authorities 12 December 2017 - letter to the applicant’s representative that no extradition check is carried in respect of the applicant (in response to the letter of 5 December 2017) 18 December 2017 - interview with a prosecutor, who concluded that there were no obstacles to extradition   Expulsion proceedings 18 July 2015 - the applicant’s stay in Russia declared undesirable by the Ministry of Justice 15 December 2017 – deportation ordered by the migration authority of Tambov Region 22 February 2018 - domestic interim measure staying deportation until judicial review 20 March 2018 - administrative proceedings adjourned by the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov for the duration of the proceedings before the Court Refugee status proceedings 30 November 2017 – asylum request 23 May 2013 - conviction of theft in Russia, 5 years imprisonment   4 January 2018 – interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal   5 October 2018 - convicted by the Somoni District Court of Dushanbe, Tajikistan and sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment   6646/18 02/02/2018 M.Z.* 16/11/1987   Detention pending extradition 12 September 2017 – arrested and subsequently detained 2 February 2018 - released by a prosecutor due to Tajik authorities decision to terminate the criminal case against the applicant   Detention pending expulsion 2 February 2018 – arrest and subsequent detention 6 February 2018 - deportation to Tajikistan Extradition proceedings 28 May 2017 – international search warrant and detention order in absentia issued by Tajik authorities 25 September 2017 - extradition request by the Tajik authorities Unspecified date - Tajik authorities terminated criminal case against the applicant (according to the information in the prosecutor’s decision to release the applicant on 2 February 2018)   Expulsion proceedings 17 January 2018 – the applicant’s stay in Russia declared undesirable by the Ministry of Interior 2 February 2018 – deportation ordered by the migration authority of Moscow 3 February 2018 - refusal to suspend deportation by the Levoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk 5 February 2018 - appeal against deportation order and request to suspend it to the Provoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk 6 February 2018 - deportation to Tajikistan 5 March 2018 - deportation order upheld by the Provoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk Refugee status proceedings 15 October 2017 – asylum request 21 December 2017 - final administrative decision to refuse examination of the application on the merits 7 February 2018 - refusal upheld by the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk 12 September 2017 - annulment of the temporary residence permit by the migration authorities   22 September 2017 - entry ban by the migration authorities   5 February 2018 - interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal   6 February 2018 - the applicant taken from Lipetsk to Moscow Domodedovo Airport   6 February 2018 - by 11:00 a.m. the applicant’s representative submitted urgent request to stop deportation in view of the interim measure, the request was sent to the airport police unit, Representative of the Russian Federation before the Court, Federal Security Service   6 February 2018 - at 12.20 p.m. the airport police unit informed the representative that they found the applicant in the boarding area escorted by the FSB agents, but did not prevent deportation due to absence of "official information" about an interim measure   6 February 2018 - deported to Uzbekistan in breach of the interim measure   9 February 2018 - police airport unit by an official letter informed the applicant’s representative that they had no information about the interim measure on the day of deportation