THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 82206/17
Albert Gabdrafikovich AKIROV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 September 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2017,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Albert Gabdrafikovich Akirov, is a Turkmen national, who was born in 1973. He was represented before the Court by Mr B.I. Ponosov, residing in Ocher, Perm Region.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 31 May 2017 the applicant’s expulsion and detention pending expulsion was ordered by the Chaykovskiy Town Court of the Perm Region. On 8 June 2017 the lower court’s judgment was upheld on appeal by the Perm Regional Court.
5. On 15 June 2017 the migration authorities requested the Consular Services of Turkmenistan in Russia to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue him a travel document.
6. On 14 November 2017 the Consular Services of Turkmenistan confirmed Turkmen citizenship of the applicant. On 27 November 2017 a travel document was issued to the applicant.
7. On 7 December 2017 the expulsion order was enforced and the applicant transferred to Turkmenistan.
COMPLAINTS
8. The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention about an alleged unlawfulness of his detention pending removal from Russia as well as about an alleged lack of an effective procedure to challenge his continued detention.
THE LAW
9. The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the alleged unlawfulness of his detention pending expulsion and an alleged lack of an effective procedure to challenge his continued detention. Article 5 in the relevant part reads:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law...
...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition...
...
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
10. The applicant in his observations stated that his detention had been unlawful and that he should not have been expelled to Turkmenistan. The Government disagreed with these allegations.
11. The Court reiterates that the exception contained in sub‑paragraph (f) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention requires only that “action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition”, without any further justification (see, inter alia, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑V), and that deprivation of liberty will be justified as long as deportation or extradition proceedings are in progress (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009).
12. In this regard the Court emphasises that the question of whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, mutatis mutandis, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-45, ECHR 2006‑X) and that the arguments for and against release must not be “general and abstract” (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 173, ECHR 2005‑X (extracts)), but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant’s personal circumstances justifying his detention.
13. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant’s complaints concern the period of six months, during which the applicant was detained pending removal to Turkmenistan. During that period the national authorities actively pursued the proceedings aimed at the applicant’s expulsion. There is no evidence indicating any arbitrariness in respect of the applicant’s detention or, more particularly, bad faith, deception or unjustified delays in the authorities’ conduct (see, conversely, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 60, Series A no. 111, and Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 41, ECHR 2002‑I).
14. As regards the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged lack of an effective procedure to challenge his continued detention, the Court notes that it is couched in general and abstract terms. Given the expeditiousness of the national proceedings, the consideration of the applicant’s claims by the domestic courts, and the initiative demonstrated by the authorities, together with the relatively short period of detention, the applicant’s individual situation was devoid of the deficiencies alleged (see similarly M.S. v. Russia (dec.), no. 61998/15, §§ 25-28, 10 October 2017).
15. Accordingly, having regard to all the material in its possession and the conclusions above, the Court finds that complaints related to the applicant’s detention pending expulsion did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that the application must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 3 October 2019.
Stephen PhillipsAlena Poláčková
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy