Communicated on 30 August 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 38237/16 Y.A. against Russia lodged on 5 July 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the imminent expulsion of the applicant, a Syrian national, to Syria.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Will there be a violation of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s removal from Russia to Syria? In particular:

(a) Does the current situation in Syria justify the finding that a removal to this country is incompatible with Article 2 or 3 of the Convention (see L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, 15 October 2015; see also Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, §§ 241-50 and §§ 265-92, 28 June 2011)?

(b) Are commercial flights available from Russia to Syria? What would be the practical arrangements for a foreigner ’ s removal from Russia to Syria?

(c) Are there sufficient guarantees in place for envisaging the alternative to a domestic flight and for averting a risk of ill-treatment and a risk of damage to the applicant ’ s physical integrity upon arriving at Damascus, then in transit and upon arriving in his hometown of Raqa (see Sufi and Elmi , cited above, §§ 265-66, with further references)?

2. Did the applicant have effective remedies for his complaint about a potential risk to his life or health in case of removal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, do any provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences require the courts ( i ) to carry out a thorough examination of a risk of death or ill-treatment, in line with the Court ’ s relevant standards and principles, and (ii) to grant adequate redress on account of substantial grounds confirming such a risk, in particular where a court has no discretion in issuing the expulsion order under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO? The respondent Government are invited to refer to specific provisions of domestic law and provide examples of the case-law of domestic courts as regards the application of Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO in the light of the arguments relating to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

3. On the assumption that the applicant had effective remedies, as required by Article 13, in respect of his complaint about a potential risk to his life or health in case of removal, did he exhaust those remedies, regard being had to his allegation of the lack of command of Russian and to his allegation that he was not assisted by an interpreter and/or by a lawyer in the proceedings before the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow?