CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 March 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12347/25 C.I. against Cyprus lodged on 24 April 2025 communicated on 10 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a Burundian national whose application for asylum in Cyprus, in which he contended that his life will be in danger from the army and police and that he will face ill-treatment in the event of his return, was rejected. On 22 February 2025 the applicant was detained pending deportation as a ‘prohibited immigrant’. His deportation was suspended with the application of interim measures issued by the Court. He remained in detention until 15 December 2025, when he was released following successful habeas corpus proceedings (no. 272/2025). The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Burundi would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to death or ill-treatment. He further complains under Article   13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3, that he did not have an effective domestic remedy as regards the examination of his asylum claim, or a remedy whereby he could challenge his threatened deportation. He pointed in this respect to the fact that the authorities allegedly failed to provide him with information on how to pursue available remedies or obtain legal aid. Relying lastly on Article   5 §§   1   and 4 he complains about the lawfulness of his detention and the absence of an effective remedy whereby to challenge such unlawfulness in the absence of access to legal aid and legal representation and misleading information as regards the applicable conditions of legal aid and the possibility to represent himself in court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, does he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the event he is expelled to Burundi?   3.     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 Burundi, as required by Articles 2 and 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)?   4.     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? In particular, (a) Did the authorities proceed with a rigorous scrutiny of the allegations of risk of ill-treatment raised by the applicant in the event of his return? (b) Did the applicant have sufficient information to enable him to gain effective access to the relevant procedure for stopping his deportation and to substantiate his complaint? Inter alia , did the authorities inform the applicant of the possibility to apply for legal aid for challenging the deportation order? (c) Was it practically possible for the applicant, while in detention, to personally pursue a recourse with the Administrative Court challenging the deportation order without the assistance of a lawyer?   5.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article     §   4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Suso Musa v.   Malta, no.   42337/12 , § 61, 23 July 2013 ; Kaak and Others v. Greece, no.   34215/16, §§   119-24, 3 October 2019)?