CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 55829/20 T.K. against Russia lodged on 20 January 2021 communicated on 26 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Syrian national, who was born in 1987 in Aleppo. He entered Russia on 12 March 2014 allegedly due to armed conflict in Syria. On 8 December 2020 the applicant was arrested trying to cross the border with Latvia. On 19 January 2021 Pskov Regional Court by final and enforceable decision convicted the applicant of unauthorised presence in   a   border zone and ordered his administrative removal and placement in   a   detention centre for illegal aliens. On 18 December 2020 the applicant applied for refugee status and temporary asylum in Russia, his requests were not accepted for examination on merits, as the applicant did not have valid identification documents. On 25 December 2020 he applied for identification procedure, the   proceedings are pending. On 2 February 2021 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 Russia for the duration of the proceedings before it. The Court further decided to give priority to the application and grant anonymity to the applicant (Rules 41 and 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he would face a real risk of being subjected to death and/or ill-treatment in the event of his removal to Syria, and under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention about absence of specific time-limits of detention pending removal and no effective procedure for review of his continued detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the general situation in Syria and the applicant’s personal circumstances, would he face a risk of   being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in event of his removal to his country of origin (see   L.M. and Others v. Russia , nos. 40081/14 and 2   others, §§   119-27, 15   October   2015, and S.K.   v.   Russia , no.   52722/15, §§   55-63, 14 February 2017)?   2.     Before deciding on the applicant’s removal, did the Russian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of his claim about the risks of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the   Convention in his country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v.   the   United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, §   214, 28 June 2011, and F.G.   v.   Sweden   [GC], no.   43611/11,   §   119, 23 March 2016)?   3.     What is the current security situation in Syria? Does the applicant have any internal flight alternatives in case of his involuntary return there?   4.     Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, has his detention pending removal been justified within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? Did he have access to a procedure allowing for judicial review of his continued detention as required by Article 5 § 4 of   the Convention (see Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11, §§ 149-74, 18 April 2013)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents, including those concerning the outcome of identification procedure in respect of the applicant.