Communicated on 18 December 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 46173/18 M.A . against Estonia lodged on 2 October 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns an Uzbekistan national ’ s deportation from Estonia to Russia which would subject him to the risk of ill-treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, if Russia were to transfer him back to Uzbekistan. It further concerns the alleged lack of effectiveness of the domestic remedies with regard to the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3.

The applicant entered Estonia illegally from Russia on 16 November 2016 and applied on the same day for international protection. His request was refused by the domestic authorities. The Supreme Court of Estonia held in its judgment of 1 October 2018 that the applicant could not be considered as a refugee and that even though substantial grounds had been shown for believing that, if returned to his country of origin, he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm, the request for subsidiary international protection had to be refused because the applicant was considered as a threat to Estonia ’ s national security and public order.

On the day of the Supreme Court ’ s judgment, the Police and Boarder Guard Board issued a deportation order with regard to the applicant as he no longer had a legal basis to stay in Estonia. The order was immediately enforced and the applicant was detained for the purposes of finalising his deportation on the same day. However, the deportation failed because he damaged his passport and lodged a new request for international protection, which he later withdrew.

On 2 October 2018 the Estonian authorities were indicated by the Court, under Rule 39 of the Convention, that the applicant should not be deported for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. To date, the applicant is being detained in a deportation centre.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Would the applicant face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, if he were to be deported from Estonia? ( see Zokhidov v. Russia , no. 67286/10 , §§ 128-42 and §§ 201-11, 5 February 2013 and also A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 126, ECHR 2009)?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy, providing appropriate time and means, for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? ( see Muminov v. Russia , no. 42502/06, § § 87-90 and §§ 101-2, 11 December 2008 and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 275-81, 15 December 2016) Before deciding on his deportation, did the Estonian authorities duly consider the applicant ’ s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment?