CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 octobre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189 October 2015 A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia - 44095/14 Judgment 29.10.2015 [Section I] Article 2 Expulsion Failure by court reviewing expulsion order to assess risk that applicant would face the death penalty: deportation would constitute a violation Facts – The applicant claimed to be a Russian national, whereas the Russian authorities claimed that he was Chinese. In August 2014 the Russian authorities ordered the applicant’s exclusion from Russia since his residence there was undesirable. He was a wanted man in China who was living unlawfully in Russia and thus posed a real threat to public order and security. The applicant appealed arguing that his deportation to China would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty. The Russian court rejected that argument on the grounds that the exclusion order was not equal to an automatic expulsion order and that he was free to leave Russia for another country. Law – Articles 2 and 3: In the case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v.   the United Kingdom the Court held that capital punishment had become an unacceptable form of punishment no longer permissible under Article   2 as amended by Protocols Nos.   6 and 13 and amounted to “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” under Article   3. Even though Russia had never ratified Protocol No.   6 or signed Protocol No.   13, in view of its unequivocal undertaking to abolish the death penalty upon becoming a member of the Council of Europe, the Court considered that Russia was nonetheless bound by an obligation stemming from Articles   2 and 3 not to extradite or deport an individual to another State where there existed substantial grounds for believing that he or she would face a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty. In the applicant’s case the domestic courts had made no assessment of the risk of him being subjected to the death penalty if deported to China but had instead concluded that the exclusion order issued did not automatically entail his deportation to China and that he could still leave Russia for another country. The Court was not convinced by those arguments since the exclusion order against the applicant mentioned explicitly that if he did not leave Russia before the stated deadline he would be deported. Moreover, since his Russian passport had been seized it appeared to be impossible for the applicant to leave Russia for another country within the three-day time-limit imposed by the exclusion order. Lastly, it was not disputed by the parties that there was a substantial and foreseeable risk that, if deported to China, the applicant would be given the death penalty following trial on the capital charge of murder. Conclusion : expulsion would constitute a violation of Articles   2 and 3 (unanimously). The Court also found, unanimously, violations of Article   3 in its substantive aspect on account of the applicant’s poor conditions of detention in two different facilities. Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v.   the United Kingdom , 61498/08, 2   March 2010, Information Note   128 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes