CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 24 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43826/19 M.O. against Turkey lodged on 6 August 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Uzbek national, who fled to Turkey in 2008 – with his family – for fear of persecution in Uzbekistan on account of his religious convictions and family background. He was granted mandate refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) in 2009. On 5 March 2015 his request for international protection was rejected by the Turkish authorities, and on 28 November 2016 a decision was taken for his deportation from Turkey. The objections that he brought against his deportation were dismissed by the Erzurum Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively. The application mainly concerns the applicant’s threatened deportation to Uzbekistan, where he would allegedly face a real risk of ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant also argues that his deportation from Turkey would amount to a violation of his right to private and family life under Article 8, having regard to the family life he has established there since 2008. On 21 August 2019 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Turkey for the duration of the proceedings before it. The Court further decided to give priority to the application under Rule   41 of the Rules of Court.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies in connection with his complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular; (a)     Did the applicant raise his complaints under Article 8 before the domestic courts? (b)     Could the applicant be expected to have appealed against the judgment of the Erzurum Administrative Court as suggested by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 12 March 2019, despite the clear wording of section   53   (3) of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no.   6458), which provides that the decisions of administrative courts in respect of deportation orders are final? The applicant is requested to provide the Court with copies of all petitions that he has submitted to the domestic courts in connection with his threatened deportation, including the individual application that he has lodged with the Constitutional Court. 2.     (a)   Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation to Uzbekistan? If so, would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention as he alleges if he were to be deported to Uzbekistan, on account of his religious convictions and family background?   Did the national authorities and courts conduct an adequate examination as to whether the applicant would be exposed to such risk if removed to Uzbekistan (see, mutatis mutandis , Auad v   Bulgaria , no.   46390/10, §§ 95-108, 11 October 2011; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no.   43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016; and Babajanov v.   Turkey , no.   49867/08, §§   41-49, 10   May 2016)?   2.     (b)     On what legal and factual grounds was the decision to deport the applicant taken?   3.     What was the reason for the refusal of the applicant’s request for international protection? In this connection, what was the relevance, if any, of the UNHCR’s earlier decision to grant the applicant with refugee status?   The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents concerning the applicant’s international protection request, including a copy of the request itself, records of any interviews that the applicant held with the authorities as part of the process, the decision refusing the applicant’s request and all court decisions delivered in the aftermath of the refusal .   4.     Would the applicant’s deportation from Turkey amount to a violation of his right to private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?