Published on 26 July 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 27584/20 K.J. and C.C. against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) c ommunicated on 5 July 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applicants are North Korean nationals. On different dates in 2018 ‑ 2020 they arrived in Russia whether on legal grounds or illegally and further wished not to return to North Korea. All lacking valid identification documents, they were trying to regularize their legal status in Russia by applying for refugee status, temporary asylum and/or identification procedure.

In respect of the applicants in cases nos. 27584/20 and 17085/21 deportation and administrative removal orders were issued by the domestic authorities. The applicants in these cases (K.J., C.C. and Z.K.) remain in detention pending their removal since 24 January 2020, 26 February 2020 and 20 March 2021 respectively.

The applicant in case no. 39768/20 was allegedly abducted and rendered to North Korean officials in Russia bypassing any legal procedure. The application was lodged on his behalf by Institute for Human Rights, NGO.

On 7 July 2020, 10 September 2020 and 1 April 2021 the Court applied interim measures in the cases nos. 27584/20, 39768/20 and 17085/21 respectively and indicated to the Government that the applicants should not be removed for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Court further decided to give priority to the applications and grant anonymity and confidentiality to the applicants (Rules 41 and 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court).

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. In the light of the general situation in North Korea and the applicants ’ personal circumstances, would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in case of their return to North Korea (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 114, 23 March 2016)?

2. Did the applicants have any effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Does the procedure of readmission under the Agreement between Russia and North Korea dated 2 February 2016 have an existence that is independent of the regular decision-taking procedures in respect of administrative removal or deportation, so that an individual can be removed to North Korea on the sole basis of the Agreement without a prior decision adopted in regular procedures? Do individuals subjected to the Agreement have in their possession any remedies with suspensive effect with regard to readmission, allowing domestic migration and judicial authorities to properly assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that individuals face a real risk to be subjected to treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in event of their removal to North Korea? Do pending refugee status and temporary asylum proceedings suspend readmission (as, for example, in K.G. v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 31084/18, §§ 21, 27-34, 2 October 2018)? If so, on what legal basis?

The Government are invited to describe the legal procedure of readmission under the Agreement between Russia and North Korea dated 2 February 2016 placed, if appropriate, within the context of removal proceedings of illegal migrants. They are also invited to submit recent domestic case-law relevant for the above questions.

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Applications nos. 27584/20 and 17085/21

1. Before deciding on the applicants ’ deportation and administrative removal, did the authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of their claims about the risks of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 214, 28 June 2011, and F.G. v. Sweden [GC], cited above, § 119)?

2. What is the outcome of the refugee status and temporary asylum proceeding s , identification proceedings in respect of the applicants?

3. Has K.J. ’ s detention pending removal been compatible with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention?

Application no. 39768/20

1. Is the application compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae ? In particular, does Institute for Human Rights have legal standing before the Court for the purpose of acting on behalf of S.K., having regard, inter alia , to lack of duly signed authority form (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 102-14, 17 July 2014, and Isakov v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 52286/14, §§ 36-43, 5 July 2016)?

2. In the view of reopening on 21 January 2021 of preliminary investigation of the applicant ’ s disappearance on 10 September 2020, do the Government have any information about the applicant ’ s whereabouts? Is or has the applicant been detained in Russia? If yes, where has he been detained, since when and on what grounds? Has his detention been compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

3. In the view of the information and documents submitted by the applicant (in particular, the refusal of 21 September 2020 to open a criminal investigation of his disappearance) has the applicant been handed by the Russian authorities to the North Korean officials? If so, on what grounds and under what legal procedure? Before deciding to render the applicant, did the authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of the risks of him being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , cited above, § 214, and F.G. v. Sweden [GC], cited above, § 119)?

4. Did the Russian authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicant ’ s disappearance (see Mamazhonov v. Russia , no. 17239/13, §§ 171, 192-202, 23 October 2014 )?.

In answering these questions the Government are invited to submit all relevant documents in support of their claims.

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

1.

27584/20

K.J. and C.C. v. Russia

07/07/2020

2.

39768/20

S.K. and Institute for Human Rights v. Russia

10/09/2020

3.

17085/21

Z.K. v. Russia

01/04/2021