CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 juin 2022

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 4 July 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14444/20 A.A. against Turkey lodged on 9 March 2020 communicated on 14 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Uzbek national who entered Turkey in 2013 with his parents, via Ukraine. Following their entry, in December 2013, the applicant’s father applied for international protection on behalf of the entire family. On 5 November 2014 their application for international protection was rejected. Subsequently, the applicant’s father lodged a case with the Ankara   Administrative Court for the annulment of the administrative decision rejecting their request for international protection. On 9 September 2015 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the case on the ground that the requirements for international protection laid down under domestic law had not been met. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 20 June 2018. On 7 December 2018 the Erzincan Governor’s Office issued a decision for the deportation of the applicant and his parents to Uzbekistan. On an unspecified date, the applicant and his parents lodged actions with the Erzincan Administrative Court for the annulment of the deportation decisions. On 14 June 2019 the cases lodged by the applicant’s parents were allowed on the grounds that they had valid reasons to fear persecution and inhuman treatment if they were to be removed to Uzbekistan. In that regard, the court noted that there were detention orders issued by Uzbek authorities in respect of the applicant’s parents. On 8 October 2019 the Erzincan Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s case, as there was no solid indication that he qualified under the domestic law as a person against whom a deportation decision could not be issued. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, accompanied by an interim measure request to stop his deportation. On 13 January 2020 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s interim measure request. Subsequently, on 1 April 2020, it dismissed the applicant’s individual application, finding his claims regarding the risk of ill-treatment and persecution in Uzbekistan to be unsubstantiated. In the meantime, on 9 March 2020 the applicant requested the Court, under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, to prevent his removal to Uzbekistan, and an interim measure was granted by the Court on 20 March 2020 as requested for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant complains of his threatened deportation to Uzbekistan, where he would allegedly face a real risk of ill-treatment within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention, and of the lack of an adequate assessment by the domestic authorities and courts of the risks that he would incur in the event of his deportation to Uzbekistan. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 in case of his removal to Uzbekistan (see, mutatis mutandis , Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06 , §§ 86-98, 11 December 2008; Mukhitdinov v. Russia , no. 20999/14, § 43, 21 May 2015, and the cases cited therein; and O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, §§ 41 ‑ 53, 21 May 2019)?   2.     Did the national authorities and courts fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill ‑ treatment if removed to Uzbekistan, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (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)? The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to the deportation proceedings, including any assessment undertaken by the domestic authorities as to the possible risks faced by the applicant in case of removal to Uzbekistan. The applicant is also requested to provide the Court with copies of the petitions that he has submitted to the domestic authorities and courts in connection with his threatened deportation to Uzbekistan as well as further information regarding any individual risks that he runs if returned there. The applicant is reminded that, in principle, the documents requested should be submitted in one of the Court’s official languages (English or French) or in Turkish.