LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
M.A. v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
Doc ref: 8818/20;12120/20;12124/20;12133/20 • ECHR ID: 001-207454
Document date: December 8, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
M.A. v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
Doc ref: 8818/20;12120/20;12124/20;12133/20 • ECHR ID: 001-207454
Document date: December 8, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 8 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 8818/20 M.A. against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1 . The applicants are Syrian nationals. The applicants ’ personal details and the information concerning their applications, the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix.
2 . On various dates the applicants legally arrived to Russia, but overstayed the period of their legal residence. In 2019-2020 they were apprehended by the immigration authorities and were found to be in breach of immigration regulations by the domestic courts which ordered their administrative removal from Russia to Syria.
3 . On 13 February 2020 in the first applicant ’ s case and on 5 March 2020 in the remainder of the cases the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court indicated an interim measure to the Russian Government staying the applicants ’ removal to Syria. It has been decided that the applicants ’ identities should not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
COMPLAINTS
4 . The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that they would face a real risk of being subjected to death and/or ill-treatment in the event of their removal to Syria.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. In case of their removal to Syria would the applicants face a real risk of death or ill-treatment there, in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?
Did the Russian authorities adequately assess the general and individualised risks under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in case of their return to Syria?
2. What is the current security situation in Syria? Do the applicants have any internal flight alternative in case of their involuntary return there?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION
In the case M.A. v. Russia , no. 8818/20, has the applicant ’ s detention been compatible with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
Represented by
Administrative removals
Detention pending removal
Temporary asylum proceedings
8818/20
12/02/2020
M.A.
1980Yekaterina Sergeyevna RAYEVA
3 June 2019 - ordered by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow
12 September 2019 - upheld by the Moscow City Court
3 June 2019 - ongoing
5 December 2019 - refused by the Moscow migration authorities
28 January 2020 - upheld by the federal migration authorities
12120/20
05/03/2020
A. J .
1988Irina Yevgenyevna SOKOLOVA
18 February 2020 - ordered by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo
26 February 2020 - upheld by the Ivanovo Regional Court
18 February 2020 - unclear whether it is still ongoing
7 July 2017 - refused by the Ivanovo Region migration authorities
24 August 2017 - upheld by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo
5 December 2017 - upheld by the Ivanovo Regional Court
21 May 2018 - cassation refused by the Ivanovo Regional Court
23 August 2018 – cassation refused by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
12124/20
05/03/2020
W .K.
1993Irina Yevgenyevna SOKOLOVA
13 January 2020 - ordered by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo
21 January 2020 - upheld by the Ivanovo Regional Court
13 January 2020 – 13 March 2020
12133/20
05/03/2020
I.A.
1988Irina Yevgenyevna SOKOLOVA
6 February 2020 - ordered by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo
17 February 2020 - upheld by the Ivanovo Regional Court
6 February 2020 - unclear whether it is still ongoing
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
