Published on 4 July 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 60451/21
H. A
against Turkey
lodged on 8 December 2021
communicated on 14 June 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a Syrian national from Aleppo who, together with his wife, fled to Turkey in 2014 as a result of acts of indiscriminate violence in Syria and alleged fear of persecution due to his religious and political beliefs, as well as his ethnic identity. Their two children were born in Turkey in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The application mainly concerns the applicant’s threatened deportation to Syria, where he would allegedly face a real risk of ill-treatment within the meaning of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and the domestic authorities’ failure to sufficiently examine that risk.
On 21 March 2018 the Turkish authorities issued an order for the applicant’s deportation on grounds that he posed a risk for public order and security on account of forgery of official documents and suspicions regarding his affiliation with a terrorist organisation, namely ISIS, in respect of which a criminal investigation had also been initiated. On 26 October 2018 the applicant’s objection against the order for his deportation was dismissed by the administrative court, which ruled that the criminal investigation pending against the applicant provided sufficient grounds for the administration’s decision to deport him and it fell within the administration’s discretionary power to proceed with deportation based on the threat to public order and security. The applicant subsequently lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court and also requested an interim measure to stay the execution of the deportation proceedings.
On 21 January 2019 the Constitutional Court, pending receipt of further information regarding the applicant’s situation, initially granted the applicant’s interim measure request in view of the risk of ill-treatment in the event of his deportation to Syria. Subsequently, in its decision dated 6 October 2021, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application, finding his claims regarding the risk of ill-treatment and persecution in Syria to be unsubstantiated. It held that the applicant had failed to raise his complaints as to alleged risk of ill-treatment before the domestic courts in substance. Consequently, the stay of execution of deportation proceedings was lifted.
On 23 December 2021 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Turkey for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.
Relying on Articles 2, 3, and 13 of the Convention the applicant mainly complains that he fears death, ill-treatment and/or persecution if returned to Syria and that domestic authorities and courts had failed to carry out a risk assessment regarding his allegations and the circumstances in Syria.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in connection with his complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
The applicant is requested to provide the Court with copies of the petitions that he has submitted to the domestic authorities and courts in connection with his threatened deportation to Syria.
2. Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation to Syria? If so, would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention as he alleges if he were to be deported to Syria (see, for instance, M.D. and Others v. Russia, nos. 71321/17 and 8 others, §§ 104-111, 14 September 2021)?
3. 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 Syria, 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)?
4. Were proceedings before administrative courts and/or the Constitutional Court capable of providing the applicant with an effective remedy, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 and within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3?
The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to the (i) deportation proceedings, including any assessment undertaken by the domestic authorities as to the possible risks faced by the applicant in case of removal to Syria, and the (ii) criminal proceedings brought against the applicant.
The applicant is also requested to submit further information regarding any individual risks that he runs if returned to Syria. The applicant is reminded that, in principle, the documents requested should be submitted in one of the Court’s official languages (English or French) or in Turkish.