Communicated on 27 April 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 54813/15
F.N.
against Russia
lodged on 20 December 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr F.N., is an Uzbek national, who was born in 1988. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Yermolayeva, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan
On 24 February 2014 a criminal investigation was opened in respect of the applicant in Uzbekistan. On 20 March 2014 he was charged in Uzbekistan with membership of the Islamic Party of Uzbekistan, a banned religious community. The charges were laid under Article 223 § 2 (illegal crossing of the Uzbekistani border), Art. 244-2 § 2 (membership of a banned religious organisation), Article 159 § 4 (infringement upon the constitutional order of Uzbekistan), Article 155 § 1 (terrorism) of the Uzbekistani Criminal Code. On 9 April 2014 the Termez Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant.
2. Extradition proceedings in respect of the applicant and the applicant’s detention pending extradition
On 27 October 2014 the applicant was apprehended in Moscow. On 28 October 2014 the Ostankinskiy District Court, Moscow remanded him in custody for the duration of the extradition proceedings.
On 20 November 2014 the Russian Prosecutor General received the extradition request from his Uzbekistani counterpart. The request contained diplomatic assurances that if extradited, the applicant would not be subject to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The applicant’s detention pending extradition was extended on several occasions. On 23 April 2015 the last extension was granted until 27 October 2015.
3. Expulsion proceedings in respect of the applicant
On 26 October 2015 the applicant was released from detention after the maximum statutory period of detention pending extradition had expired. He was not set free but immediately taken from the IZ-4 remand prison first to the Ostankinskiy district prosecutor’s office and later to Rostokino police station. He was not given any documents relating to his release; his passport and other personal documents were not returned.
On the same day the police instituted administrative proceedings against the applicant. He was charged under Article 18.8 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences with a breach of migration regulations resulting from his failure to leave Russia after the authorised period of his stay in Russia had expired on 16 May 2013. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge.
On 27 October 2015 the Ostankinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged, fined him and issued a deportation order. It also directed that the applicant should be detained in the aliens’ detention centre in Moscow pending his deportation.
On 2 November 2015 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the deportation order. She claimed that the court had had in its possession the information concerning the charges against the applicant in Uzbekistan but had failed to consider the high risk that the applicant would be tortured or ill-treated in Uzbekistan.
The appeal hearing before the Moscow City Court was scheduled for 24 December 2015. However, following the indication of interim measures by the Court on 21 December 2015, the hearing was postponed sine die.
On 30 January 2015 the applicant applied for refugee status in Russia. On 3 April 2015 his application was refused by the Moscow branch of the Federal Migration Service. Following an appeal by the applicant, this decision was upheld by the central office of the Federal Migration Service on 24 July 2015. The applicant complained to the Basmanniy District Court, Moscow, which rejected his claim on 21 December 2015.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he would be exposed to a real risk of torture or ill-treatment if extradited or otherwise sent back to Uzbekistan, because he belongs to a vulnerable group which is systematically subjected to ill-treatment in that State.
The applicant further complains, under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, that the real purpose of his detention after 27 October 2015 was to circumvent the statutory time-limit on detention pending extradition and that his detention in that period was not limited in time and was “punitive” in nature.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Would the applicant face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Uzbekistan?
2. During the domestic proceedings, did the authorities consider the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to Uzbekistan?
3. Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the instant case in the light of the Court’s findings in a similar situation in Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, § 164 et seq., 18 April 2013)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy