Communicated on 3 April 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 5137/19 N.R . against Turkey lodged on 24 January 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Tajik national, who allegedly fled his country for fear of persecution due to his religious convictions, in particular, his affiliation with the Tablighi Jamaat , which is considered to be an illegal organisation in Tajikistan. The application concerns the applicant ’ s threatened deportation to Tajikistan, and the alleged absence of an effective remedy to challenge the deportation decision. The applicant relies on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

On 25 January 2019 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Turkey until 15 February 2019. The Court further decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 11 February 2019 the Court decided to prolong, until further notice, the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

QUESTION tO THE GOVERNMENT

Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation from Turkey? If so, is the country of destination Tajikistan?

QUESTIONS tO BOTH PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in connection with his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were proceedings before administrative courts and/or the Constitutional Court capable of providing the applicant with an effective remedy, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 and within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Article 3, having particular regard to the fact that neither of those remedies had an automatic suspensive effect by reason of the changes brought about by sections 35 and 36 of the D ecree Law no. 676 of 29 October 2016 (see A.M. v. the Netherlands , no. 29094/09, §§ 64-71, 5 July 2016)?

The parties are requested to provide information about the outcome of any proceedings pending before the administrative courts and the Constitutional Court in respect of the applicant ’ s threatened expulsion to Tajikistan .

2. 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 Tajikistan? Did the national authorities and courts conduct an adequate examination of the applicant ’ s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of ill ‑ treatment if removed to Tajikistan (see, mutatis mutandis , Auad v. Bulgaria , no. 46390/10, §§ 95-108, 11 October 2011; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016; and Babajanov v. Turkey , no. 49867/08, §§ 41-49, 10 May 2016)?

The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to their replies, including documents pertaining to the asylum request that the applicant claims to have lodged with the Turkish authorities.