CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 mars 2023

.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 } .s13F94BE0 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } Published on 27 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35563/22 D.B. against Poland lodged on 22 July 2022 communicated on 8 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s expulsion from Poland to Russia on 22 July 2022 and the lack of suspensive effect of his appeals against the first-instance decision to refuse his second asylum application and to have him expelled. He invokes Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s expulsion in breach of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the Polish authorities consider the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to torture and inhuman treatment if returned to Russia given that he was a Russian national of Chechen origin, allegedly related to an ISIS member wanted by INTERPOL for his engagement in the 2016 terrorist attack in Grozny?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Reference is made, in particular, to the fact that: (i)     the decision issued on 11 September 2019 by the Commander of the Boarder Guard obliging the applicant to leave Poland on security grounds, in relation to his criminal conviction (Sections 315 and 302 of Aliens Act) was enforceable despite the fact that an appeal (dated 14 October 2019) had been lodged by the applicant and was pending examination (Section 330 paragraph 2 of the 2013 Aliens Act); (ii)     his appeal against his expulsion order, dated 14   October 2019, was only examined on 28 July 2022; and (iii)     the expulsion order was indeed immediately enforced.