Communicated on 8 April 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 43348/13
David Dzhemalovich CHKHIKVISHVILI against Russia
lodged on 11 June 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr David Dzhemalovich Chkhikvishvili, is a stateless person, who was born in 1960. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Tirskikh, a lawyer practising in Minusinsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in the Chokhatauri municipality in the Georgian SSR of the USSR. He has been living in Russia since 1995. It appears that he had been a Georgian national until November 2007.
In 1998, 2007 and 2009 the applicant was convicted of drug-related offences in Russia and given a custodial sentence. The most recent sentence was set to expire on 11 October 2012.
On 8 October 2012 the Ministry of Justice issued a decision declaring that the applicant’s presence in Russia would be undesirable upon his release (the “exclusion order”).
On 11 October 2012 the Federal Migration Service issued a deportation order against the applicant and asked the Abakan Town Court of the Khakassiya Republic to authorise the applicant’s placement into the detention centre for aliens pending his deportation. On the same day the Town Court granted the request, holding that the applicant should remain in the centre “until his deportation”.
On 1 November 2012 the Abakan Town Court, and on 16 January 2013 the Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic, confirmed the validity of the exclusion and deportation orders. On 8 April 2013 the applicant’s request for leave to appeal was rejected.
On 7 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic heard the applicant’s appeal against the decision on his placement in custody. The Supreme Court upheld the decision but fixed the time-limit until 31 December 2012.
On 14 December 2012 the Abakan Town Court examined an application for an extension of the time-limit. It noted that on 23 November 2012 the Federal Migration Service had approached the Georgian representation with a view to establishing the applicant’s nationality but had received no response. The Town Court extended the time-limit until 1 July 2013.
The applicant filed an appeal. He submitted that, upon serving the sentence, he should have been given an opportunity to leave Russia of his own will but that was refused to him.
On 24 January 2013 the Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic rejected the appeal. It further held that the Town Court had erred in fixing a specific time-limit for the applicant’s detention and that the applicant should remain in detention “until his deportation”. On 8 April 2013 the applicant’s request for leave to appeal was rejected.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under various Convention provisions about the fact that his detention with a view to deportation is unlimited in time.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, were the deportation proceedings prosecuted with due diligence? Does the Russian law set a time-limit for detention with a view to deportation?
2. Was there a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have at his disposal a procedure for a judicial review of the lawfulness of this detention at regular intervals? Did the domestic courts examine whether or not the applicant’s deportation was a realistic prospect?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy