Communicated on 3 April 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 44592/17 R. N . against Turkey lodged on 22 June 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is an Uzbek national, who allegedly fled his country in 2014 with his wife and kids for fear of persecution due to his political and religious convictions, in particular, his affiliation with the so-called “ Reshad movement” in Uzbekistan. On 9 March 2017, his house was searched by the police as part of an investigation into ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al ‑ Sham), and on 14 March 2017 a decision was taken for his deportation from Turkey for reasons of public security. The application concerns the applicant ’ s threatened expulsion to Uzbekistan – despite the real danger of persecution there and at the expense of the family life that he had built in Turkey –, the alleged failure of the Constitutional Court to duly examine his requests for an interim measure, and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the deportation order issued against him.

The applicant relies on Articles 3, 8, 6 and 13 of the Convention.

On 10 July 2017 the Court (the duty judge) rejected the applicant ’ s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for an interim measure to stop his deportation to Uzbekistan.

QUESTION TO THE GOVERNMENT

1. Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation from Turkey? If so, is the country of destination Uzbekistan? In this connection, why was the initial deportation order issued against the applicant on 29 September 2014 not executed at the material time?

The Government are requested to provide the Court with copies of the deportation orders issued against the applicant since his arrival in Turkey, along with all material information in respect of those deportation orders and the legal proceedings that the applicant has brought against those orders. The Government are also requested to provide information regarding the requests for international protection lodged by the applicant .

QUESTIONS TO BOTH PARTIES

1. Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were to be deported to Uzbekistan, having regard to his involvement with the so-called “ Reshad movement” and his suspected affiliation with ISIS?

The applicant is requested to;

- provide detailed information as to the alleged ill-treatment that he had received in Uzbekistan during his detention following the demonstrations of 2006, and to explain whether he had been subjected to persecution by Uzbek authorities after his release and until his escape from Uzbekistan in 2014 ;

- provide information on the “ Reshad Movement” and the risks that the members of this group currently face in Uzbekistan, with concrete examples if possible ;

- inform the Court as to the existence and the nature of any charges brought against him in Uzbekistan and to indicate whether he is currently being sought by Uzbek authorities;

- provide information on the risks that persons affiliated with ISIS face in Uzbekistan, with concrete examples if possible.

The Government are requested to;

- indicate whether, according to the domestic practice, suspicions regarding a foreigner ’ s affiliation with an illegal organisation is shared with the authorities of the country of destination during the deportation process;

- inform the Court as to whether there are any criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in Turkey .

2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in connection with his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the proceedings before the Istanbul Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court provide an effective remedy, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 and within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3, having regard to the fact that neither of those remedies had an automatic suspensive effect at the material time by reason of the changes brought about by sections 35 and 36 of the Decree Law no. 676 of 29 October 2016 (see A.M. v. the Netherlands , no. 29094/09, §§ 64-71, 5 July 2016)?

3. Did the Constitutional Court adequately examine, as required under Article 13, the applicant ’ s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment if returned to Uzbekistan in violation of Article 3 before dismissing his requests for an interim measure (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey , no. 30471/08, §§ 107-117, 22 September 2009, and Asalya v. Turkey , no. 43875/09, §§ 111-120, 15 April 2014)?

4. Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, would the applicant ’ s deportation from Turkey amount to a violation of his right to private and family life within the meaning of Article 8?