Published on 20 December 2021
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 38776/21
Y.K.
against Croatia
lodged on 24 July 2021
communicated on 2 December 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant in the case is a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity.
He alleges that he was tortured and prosecuted numerous times in Turkey owing to his political activism, and that in 2019 he fled that country. In February 2021 he clandestinely entered Croatia and was immediately arrested and placed in an immigration centre. There he repeatedly tried to institute asylum proceedings, but each time the officials ignored his request for asylum and denied him the possibility to submit an application to that effect. On one occasion he made his request in the presence of the Croatian Ombudswoman’s representatives, and on several occasions he made it through his lawyer (a copy of the Ombudswoman’s letter and email correspondence between the lawyer and the officials were submitted to the Court). At the same time, the authorities denied his lawyer an opportunity to visit him in the immigration centre and ignored the lawyer’s request to be served with the expulsion order. The applicant further alleges that the authorities told him that in case of instituting asylum proceedings he would spend a year in prison and that they thus forced him to sign a voluntary return document. On 25 March 2021 they gave him a bus ticket to North Macedonia and told him to return to Greece. The applicant disembarked in Serbia.
The applicant complains that the Croatian authorities’ repeated refusals to give him the possibility of lodging an application for international protection was in breach of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.
He further complains that the feeling of anxiety and insecurity related to his legal situation, caused by the authorities’ ignoring his request for international protection and preventing contact between him and his lawyer, amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
Under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was unable to challenge his removal from Croatia, in that his lawyer was unable to obtain the removal orders, and that in any event an administrative action against those decisions has no automatic suspensive effect.
Lastly, the applicant complains that the Croatian authorities’ actions aimed at preventing contact between him and his lawyer were in breach of Article 34 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, was the denial to receive and process the applicant’s request for international protection by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, M.K. and Others v. Poland, nos. 40503/17 and 2 others, §§ 150-186, 23 July 2020; and D v. Bulgaria, no. 29447/17, 20 July 2021)?
(a) In particular, did the applicant communicate to the Croatian officials reasons justifying his fear of persecution in Turkey, or raised any arguments militating against considering North Macedonia or Greece to be safe third countries for him?
(b) Before deciding on his return to North Macedonia or Greece, did the Croatian authorities thoroughly examine of their own initiative the question of whether or not there was a real risk of the applicant being denied access, in those receiving third countries, to an adequate asylum procedure, protecting him against refoulement to Turkey (see Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, § 134, 21 November 2019)?
(c) Did the applicant, by signing the voluntary return document, waive his Article 3 rights and lose his victim status in that regard (see M.A. v. Belgium, no. 19656/18, § 61, 27 October 2020)?
2. Did the manner in which the applicant was treated by the Croatian authorities amount to degrading or inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant’s statement that he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to lodge a request for international protection and was denied contact with his lawyer.
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant’s allegation that he was unable to challenge his removal from the country as he was prevented from contacting his lawyer and that, in any event, an administrative action against the removal order did not have an automatic suspensive effect.
4. Have the authorities, by denying the applicant access to his lawyer, hindered the effective exercise of his right to an individual application under Article 34 of the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant’s allegations that, because he was not allowed to contact his lawyer, he was unable to institute any domestic proceedings regarding his situation or ask for an interim measure from the Court.