Communicated on 6 April 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 80206/17
Jumaah Aessa Awad AWAD and Asmaa Mosa Awad AWAD
against Turkey
lodged on 18 November 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants, a couple and asylum seekers in Turkey, are Iraqi nationals who were born in 1971 and 1984 and live in Istanbul. The application concerns the threatened expulsion of the applicants and their four children to Iraq and the alleged failure of both the administrative authorities and the courts to conduct a proper assessment of the applicants’ allegation that they would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment if removed to their country.
The applicants rely on Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention.
On 16 February 2018 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be expelled from Turkey for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Court further decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
QUESTION tO THE GOVERNMENT
1. Are the applicants currently under a threat of deportation from Turkey? Is the country of destination Iraq? If so, to which region/city/district of Iraq will the applicants be removed?
QUESTIONS tO both PARTIES
1. Would the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention if they were to be deported to Iraq?
2. Did the national authorities fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicants’ allegations of that they would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment if removed to Iraq, 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)?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular,
(a) Did the Istanbul Administrative Court examine the applicants’ allegations that they would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of Articles 2 and 3 before taking the decision to dismiss their cases (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, §§ 107-117, 22 September 2009, and Asalya v. Turkey, no. 43875/09, §§ 111-120, 15 April 2014)? In particular, did the court scrutinise the grounds invoked by the administrative authorities for the applicants’ deportation?
(b) Were the administrative authorities’ submissions to the Istanbul Administrative Court served on the applicants? If not, did the applicants’ inability to have access to information and documents submitted by the administrative authorities constitute a breach of Article 13 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to their replies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy