Published on 8 January 2024
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 41344/19
A.N.A.
against Türkiye
lodged on 23 July 2019
communicated on 12 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is an Iraqi national who was born in 1998. In June 2014 he left Iraq and entered Türkiye, allegedly for fear of persecution at the hands of al-Qaeda. The applicant’s request for international protection was rejected by the Turkish authorities and a deportation order was issued against him on 16 July 2018. On 3 October 2018 the Istanbul Administrative Court rejected his opposition to the expulsion order. On 28 January 2019 the Constitutional Court rejected his individual application on the grounds that the file did not contain any information demonstrating a concrete danger that the applicant would risk facing in case of deportation to Iraq.
On an unspecified date, the applicant was deported to Iraq and according to the latest information in the case file, he continues to reside there.
The application mainly concerns the applicant’s removal from Türkiye and the alleged failure of both the administrative authorities and the courts to conduct a proper assessment of the applicant’s allegation that he would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment if removed to his country.
The applicant mainly relies on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant’s removal to Iraq entail a real risk that he would be subjected to treatment in violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 77-123, 23 August 2016; S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60367/10, §§ 69-95, 29 January 2013; and A.A. v. Switzerland, no. 32218/17, § 39‑59, 5 November 2019)?
2. Did the national authorities and courts 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 Iraq, as required under Articles 2 and 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)?
3. 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, did the national authorities examine the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of Articles 2 and 3 before taking the decision to dismiss his case (see, for example, Asalya v. Turkey, no. 43875/09, §§ 113‑14, 15 April 2014)? Did the court scrutinise the grounds invoked by the administrative authorities for the applicant’s deportation?
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 Iraq.
The applicant is requested to indicate whether he has faced any treatment contrary to Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention following his return to Iraq and to support his response with relevant material.
The applicant is reminded that the documents submitted should be in one of the Court’s official languages (English or French) or in Turkish.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy