CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 18 December 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 8966/20 K. A. against Türkiye lodged on 29 January 2020 communicated on 29 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Russian national from the Republic of Dagestan who was born in 1985. In January 2015 he left Russia and entered Türkiye, allegedly for fear of persecution at the hands of the Russian authorities. The applicant claimed in particular that he had been subjected to threats and physical assaults by the Russian intelligence officers on numerous occasions, and was also prosecuted, on account of his activities in “Huda TV”, a television channel which broadcasts pro-Islamic content. On 24 March 2017 the deputy governor of Istanbul ordered the applicant’s deportation from Türkiye pursuant to section 54(1)(d) and (e) of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458) on the grounds that he posed a threat to public security and did not have a valid visa. On 28   November 2017 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the order for lack of concrete evidence of involvement with terrorist organisations and for existence of a risk of persecution in the event of removal to Russia. Subsequently, on 18 March 2018 a new deportation order was issued against the applicant, this time only on the ground that he posed a threat to public security. On 28 February 2019, the applicant’s request for the annulment of the deportation order was dismissed by the Istanbul Administrative Court. On 10 June 2019 the applicant lodged and individual application before the Constitutional Court together with a request for an interim measure to suspend the deportation proceedings. On 24 July 2019 the Constitutional Court declared his individual application inadmissible as being manifestly ill ‑ founded without having separately ruled on the interim measure request. The applicant complains that his removal to Russia would lead to a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. On 20 February 2020 the Court refused to indicate the interim measure requested by the applicant. From the documents submitted it appears that the applicant continues to reside in Istanbul, Türkiye. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation to Russia? 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 Russia (see, for example , M.G. v. Bulgaria , no. 59297/12, §§ 53-58, 25   March 2014; K.I.   v.   France , no. 5560/19, §§ 85-91, 15 April 2021; and X. v. Germany (dec.), no. 54646/17, §§ 15-18, 7 November 2017)?   2.     Did the national authorities 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 Russia, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , M.S.S. v.   Belgium and   Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §358, ECHR 2011; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 156, ECHR 2012; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no.   43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016; Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, §§ 93-116, 29   April 2022; and Babajanov v.   Turkey , no. 49867/08, §§ 41-49, 10 May 2016)? In particular, did the national authorities and courts provide sufficient reasoning for their decision to depart from the findings made in the Istanbul Administrative Court’s judgment of 28 November 2017 as to the possible risks that the applicant’s removal to Russia would pose?   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 Russia. The applicant is reminded that the documents requested should be submitted in one of the Court’s official languages (English or French) or in Turkish.