Communicated on 19 February 2021
Published on 8 March 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 55978/20
T.K. and Others
against Lithuania
lodged on 23 December 2020
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are nationals of Tajikistan: Mr T.K., Ms O.O. and their four minor children. They arrived in Lithuania in January 2019 and lodged an asylum application, which was refused. They lodged a repeated asylum application in May 2020, which was refused as well. In their asylum applications the applicants submitted that they faced a risk of persecution in their country of origin because of the first applicant’s political activities. The Lithuanian authorities acknowledged that the first applicant was a member of an opposition political party which had been banned and declared a terrorist organisation in Tajikistan. However, they held that he had not been a particularly active member and that only leaders and active members of that party were at risk of persecution. The courts considered that the applicants had not provided a consistent account of the harassment and threats to which they had allegedly been subjected in their country of origin and that the available information did not demonstrate a risk of persecution in the future. Following the rejection of the asylum applications, the applicants’ removal became imminent.
On 23 December 2020 the Court decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Lithuanian Government that the applicants should not be removed to Tajikistan.
The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that removal to Tajikistan would expose them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment because of the first applicant’s political activities. They also complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the Lithuanian authorities failed to duly examine the relevant country of origin information and that they did not assess the risk of persecution in accordance with the standards developed in the Court’s case-law.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the applicants’ claims and the documents which have been submitted, would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Tajikistan (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 110-16, 23 March 2016, and K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, §§ 25-28, 7 November 2017, with further references)?
2. During the asylum proceedings, did the applicants present a generally coherent and credible account of their activities and the threats allegedly received in their country of origin, as well as other relevant personal circumstances (see F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, §§ 113, 120 and 125, and J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 91-97, 23 August 2016, with further references)?
3. Before deciding on the applicants’ removal, did the Lithuanian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of their claims concerning the risk of ill-treatment in their country of origin, as required under Article 3 of the Convention (see F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, §§ 117‑22 and 125-27; J.K. and Others v. Sweden, cited above, §§ 87-105; and Allanazarova v. Russia, no. 46721/15, § 103, 14 February 2017)? In particular, did the authorities duly assess the available country of origin information?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy