CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Communicated on 17 October 2019 and 8 January 2021 Published on 25 January 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45761/18 N.K. against Russia lodged on 28 September 2018 The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     In view of the information concerning the applicant’s departure for Tajikistan immediately after the expulsion hearing in the Kingisepp District Court of the Leningrad Region on 22   September   2020, has there been a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention? In particular:   - Was the applicant apprehended / arrested after the hearing in the Kingisepp District Court on 22 September 2020? If yes, who (official titles) carried out the applicant’s apprehension / arrest after the expulsion hearing on 22 September 2020, on what ground(s) and did this/these person(s) take the applicant to Pulkovo Airport to enforce the order of his expulsion? The Government are invited to provide relevant documents in connection with the applicant’s apprehension / arrest and transfer to the airport on 22   September 2020.   - Had the information on interim measure issued by the Court, staying the applicant’s removal to Tajikistan and pending in respect of him since September 2018, been brought to the attention of the relevant authorities (i.e. police, domestic court that examined his case, border control)? If no, what are the reasons for that?   - If the applicant was removed and the relevant state bodies did not comply with the interim measure indicated to the Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court on 28   September 2018, what are the reasons for that?   2.     If the applicant was removed on 22 September 2020, was there any new assessment by the domestic authorities in connection with this of the risks of the applicant’s being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in case of his removal to Tajikistan?