THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31084/18 K.G. against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 October 2018 as a Chamber composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Branko Lubarda, Dmitry Dedov, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Alena Poláčková, Jolien Schukking, María Elósegui, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2018,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr K.G., is a Tajik national who was born in 1990 and is currently detained in the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Shirokov, a lawyer practising in Moscow, and Mr B. Khamroyev, residing in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. In 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia seeking employment. On 3 April 2017 he allegedly concluded a religious Muslim marriage with a Russian national, Ms Z.

4. On 3 April 2017 the applicant was charged by the Tajik authorities with unlawful recruitment of Tajik nationals and stateless persons for participation in armed conflicts on the territory of other S tates. On 8 and 12 April 2017 the Tajik authorities issued a search warrant and detention order in absentia . On 29 August 2017 an international search warrant was issued.

1. Relevant removal proceedings in Russia

5. On 2 November 2017 the applicant was arrested by the Russian authorities on the basis of the international search warrant. During the initial questioning by the Russian authorities he stated that he had not been aware of the charges in Tajikistan, had never travelled to either Syria or Iraq, and had never participated in an unlawful armed group. He had been a practising Muslim since childhood and had an “extremely negative” attitude to terrorist activities. He did not indicate any fears related to his possible return to his country of origin.

6. On 3 November 2017 the Zolskiy District Court of the Kabardino ‑ Balkariya Republic ordered the applicant ’ s detention pending transfer to the Tajik authorities. The order was initially issued for one month and subsequently extended until 14 June 2018.

7. On 14 June 2018 the applicant was released from detention and immediately re-arrested for a violation of immigration rules.

8. On the same day the Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic found the applicant to be in breach of immigration rules ( Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)) and ordered his administrative removal and detention pending enforcement of the order. The Town Court dismissed as groundless claims made by the applicant that he risked ill-treatment in Tajikistan and specifically noted that he had not applied for asylum. It also dismissed as unsubstantiated claims that his removal would interfere with his family life, since no relevant evidence had been presented to the court.

9. On 28 June 2018 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic upheld the lower court ’ s judgment.

2. Proceedings before the Court

10. On 3 July 2018 the Court received a request dated 30 June 2018 for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Referring to his prosecution in Tajikistan, the applicant claimed that he ran a real risk of ill ‑ treatment in the event of expulsion, given the poor human-rights record of that country and the international reports on torture of persons charged with religious and politically motivated crimes.

11. On 4 July 2018 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the Russian Government, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be removed to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The parties were further requested, under Rule 54 § 2 (a), to submit by 18 July 2018 the factual information on the status of the applicant ’ s asylum request.

12. On 18 July 2018 the Russian Government informed the Court that the applicant ’ s request for refugee status of 26 June 2018 had been submitted to the immigration authorities via the administration of the special centre for the temporary detention of aliens in the Kabardino ‑ Balkariya Republic. On 6 July 2018 the request was accepted for examination by the immigration authorities and the applicant was issued a certificate confirming the examination of his asylum request. The Government further stated that a decision on the request would be taken by 6 October 2018, that is within the applicable time-limit prescribed by the legislation in force.

13. On the same date the applicant ’ s representative confirmed that the asylum request had been submitted to the immigration authorities.

14. On 20 July 2018 the applicant was informed that on 19 July 2018 the Court had reconsidered the application in the light of the information about the pending asylum request provided by the Government on 18 July 2018 and had decided, in view of that information, to lift the previously indicated interim measure and to discontinue priority treatment of the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. He was further advised that that decision did not preclude him from lodging a new request for an interim measure if further developments in the case warranted it.

RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

15. In the present case the applicant was a party to extradition, administrative-removal and refugee-status proceedings, which are separate and distinct types of proceedings in the Russian legal system. They are regulated respectively by the Criminal Procedure Code of 2001, the Code of Administrative Offences of 2001 and the Refugees Act of 1993.

A. Extradition proceedings

16. The relevant provisions of the domestic law on extradition were previously cited by the Court in the judgment in the case of Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10 , §§ 70-76, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

B. Administrative-removal proceedings

17. The relevant provisions of the domestic law on administrative removal were previously cited by the Court in the judgments in the cases of L.M. and Others v. Russia (nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, §§ 61-62, 15 October 2015) and S.K. v. Russia (no. 52722/15, § 23-29, 14 February 2017).

C. Refugee-status and temporary asylum proceedings

19. After a person has applied for asylum, the immigration authorities interview the asylum seeker, verify the validity of information about him and his family members, the circumstances of his or her arrival in Russia, his immigration status, and the grounds and reasons for the request. Having examined the above information, the immigration authorities either issue an asylum-seeker certificate, or refuse examination of the request on the merits, or refuse refugee status (section 3 (3)). The above-mentioned certificate serves as an identity document for the asylum seeker and entitles him to claim social-security benefits and medical cover, as well as assistance in travel, residence and employment matters.

20. Persons who have applied for or been granted refugee status cannot be returned against their will to the State of which they are a national where their life or freedom would be imperilled on account of their race, religion, nationality, or their membership of a particular social group or political opinion (sections 1 and 10 (1)).

D. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

23. Point 26 of Ruling no. 11 of 14 June 2012 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation provided guidance to the Russian courts on the interrelation of refugee status and extradition proceedings. Referring to the Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Supreme Court effectively indicated that pending refugee-status or asylum proceedings, both at the administrative level and on judicial review, must not prevent the judicial review of extradition authorisations. The Supreme Court clarified that even if an extradition decision was found to be lawful and well ‑ founded, the above-mentioned asylum proceedings prevented any de facto transfer of a person to a requesting State. In other words, they have a suspensive effect while the consideration of an asylum request by the immigration authorities or the judicial review of a refusal is in progress.

24. Case-law Overview no. 3 (2015) adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court on 25 November 2015 included judgment no. 14-AD15-3 of 29 June 2015 issued on appeal against the administrative-removal order under Article 18.8 of the CAO (breach of immigration rules). In that judgment the Supreme Court annulled the removal order, referring to international human rights instruments, including the Convention, citing the above-mentioned Ruling no. 11 of 14 June 2012 as establishing analogous principles, and having regard to the complaints about a real risk of ill ‑ treatment in the event of removal and pending asylum proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

25. The applicant complained that his removal to Tajikistan would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He also lodged related complaints under Articles 5, 8, and 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

26. The applicant complained that in the event of his administrative removal to Tajikistan, he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

29. Accordingly a person who has applied for refugee status or temporary asylum and obtained the relevant certificate, benefits from the suspensive effect of the asylum proceedings in respect of extradition or expulsion, even if the relevant removal decisions are final and hypothetically enforceable.

31. In the present case, the Court on 19 July 2018 reconsidered the previous indication of the interim measure staying the applicant ’ s removal to Tajikistan and lifted it in the light of the information on the applicant ’ s asylum procedure submitted by the parties (see paragraph 14 above).

32. At present that asylum procedure is still pending and the applicant is currently not at risk of being removed from Russia to Tajikistan or any other country. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

33. The applicant also complained under Articles 5, 8, and 13 of the Convention about his detention pending extradition and expulsion from Russia. He alleged that the decision of the Russian authorities to remove him, as well as the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, constituted an interference with his family life. Having considered the available material, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 25 October 2018 .

Stephen Phillips Vincent A. De Gaetano Registrar President