CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2025

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27255/24 S.D. against Lithuania lodged on 26 September 2024 communicated on 17 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Lithuanian authorities’ decision to revoke the applicant’s refugee status and to remove him to Tajikistan. The applicant is a Tajik national. On 24 March 2016 the Migration Department granted him refugee status in Lithuania on the grounds that he was a political activist of “Group 24” and a critic of the Tajik government. The applicant’s wife, who is also a Tajik national, and their three minor children live in Lithuania. On 19   April 2024 the Migration Department revoked the applicant’s refugee status and residence permit; it decided to remove him to Tajikistan and to ban him from entering Lithuania for five years. Relying on information provided by the State Security Department, the Migration Department considered that the applicant’s presence in Lithuania posed a threat to national security because he was a follower of Islamic fundamentalism, maintained contacts with supporters of radical associations and publicly encouraged distrust in the Lithuanian authorities and law. Moreover, while living in Lithuania, he had not carried out any activities of political opposition, thus, there was no reason to believe that in his country of origin he would be persecuted because of his political views. On 17 July 2024 the Regional Administrative Court endorsed the decision of the Migration Department in part. The court agreed that the applicant presented a threat to national security and that this constituted a sufficient basis to revoke his refugee status. However, the court observed that the Migration Department had not provided any information showing that former opposition activists were not persecuted in Tajikistan, nor sufficiently assessed the applicant’s current political activities or the general information of his country of origin. In such circumstances, the court considered that the declassified information provided by the State Security Department concerning the applicant’s alleged ties with the Tajik authorities was not in itself sufficient to rule out the risk of persecution. Accordingly, it annulled the decision to remove the applicant to Tajikistan and to ban him from entering Lithuania and ordered the Migration Department to examine those questions afresh. On 25 September 2024 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the lower court’s decision in part and endorsed the Migration Department’s decision in its entirety. In particular, the court observed that the applicant no longer participated in the activities of “Group 24” and that he maintained contacts with the Tajik authorities. This was sufficient to find that the Tajik authorities no longer considered him as a threat, therefore, it was not necessary to collect general information about the situation in Tajikistan. On 25 October 2024 the Court indicated to the Lithuanian Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant should not be removed to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the removal to Tajikistan would expose him to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment because he is an outspoken critic of the Tajik government. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 that the Lithuanian authorities failed to properly examine the risk of him facing persecution in his country of origin. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, he argues that the Lithuanian authorities did not properly assess the impact of the decision to remove him from Lithuania on his private and family life and on the best interests of his children. Furthermore, he claims that he was not afforded with sufficient procedural safeguards relating to his expulsion as required by Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention if removed to Tajikistan (see F.G.   v.   Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 110-16, 23 March 2016; K.I.   v.   Russia , no. 58182/14, §§ 25-28, 7 November 2017; and T.K. and Others v. Lithuania , no. 55978/20, § 75, 22 March 2022)?   2.     During the proceedings concerning the revocation of the refugee status did the applicant present a generally coherent and credible account of his current political opposition activities as well as other relevant personal circumstances (see F.G. v. Sweden , cited above, §§ 113, 120 and 125, and J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no.   59166/12, §§ 91-97, 23 August 2016)?   3.     Before deciding on the applicant’s removal, did the Lithuanian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of his claims concerning the risk of ill-treatment in his country of origin, as required under Article 3 of the Convention (see F.G. v. Sweden , §§   117-22 and 125-27, and J.K. and Others v.   Sweden , §§   87-105, both cited above)? In particular, did the authorities carry out an adequate assessment of his current political opposition activities, the general information of his country of origin concerning the persecution of former opposition activists and the nature of his alleged ties with the Tajik authorities?   4.     Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies with regard to his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   5.     Assuming that domestic remedies have been exhausted, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the decision to remove him from Lithuania (see   Gaspar v.   Russia , no.   23038/15, § 39, 12 June 2018)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the requirements of Article   8 §   2?   6.     Did the decision to remove the applicant comply with the procedural requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention (see   Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania   [GC], no.   80982/12, §§   133 ‑ 57, 15   October 2020, and Ljatifi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 19017/16, §§   33-35, 17 May 2018)? In particular, the Government are asked to address the applicant’s arguments that the authorities’ allegation that he posed a threat to national security was not based on evidence that he could refute and that he was not presented with any evidence regarding his alleged ties with the Tajik authorities.