Communicated on 21 June 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 52688/15 M.B. against Russia lodged on 23 October 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr M.B., is a Syrian national .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his expulsion to Syria would represent a threat to his life and subject him to a real risk of ill-treatment.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his detention pending expulsion, owing to the absence of any time-limits in respect of that detention.

3. The applicant alleges, in substance, under Article 13 of the Convention, that his arguments were not thoroughly examined at the domestic level and that the temporary asylum procedure had no automatic suspensive effect vis-à-vis the expulsion order.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In the light of the applicant ’ s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would the applicant risk being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if his expulsion from Russia to Syria were to be enforced?

2.1. Did or does the applicant have effective remedies in respect of the above complaint, as required under Article 13 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did/does any specific Article of the Code of Administrative Offences make provision for ( i ) a thorough examination of an issue of a risk of death or ill-treatment, in line with the Court ’ s relevant standards and principles, and (ii) granting adequate redress on account of substantial grounds confirming such a risk, given that Article 18.8 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for expulsion in all cases ?

(b) As to the temporary asylum procedure, has the assessment of the applicant ’ s situation been based on sufficiently clear and foreseeable criteria that are wide enough to deal properly with the substance on an issue under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention? Did/does any specific provision of the Refugees Act or other legislation provide that a pending application for temporary asylum and a pending judicial review in respect of a refusal to grant such asylum each have an “automatic suspensive effect” vis-à-vis a final expulsion order (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia , no. 71386/10, § 31, ECHR 2013; Tukhtamurodov v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015, §§ 24-27; Khamrakulov v. Russia , no. 68894/13, § 61, 16 April 2015; and L.M. and Others, cited above, §§ 67 and 100)? Do the absence of such an effect, the narrow scope of assessment and the temporary nature of the solution arising from a refusal to grant temporary asylum make this remedy ineffective/not to be exhausted before lodging an application before the Court?

2.2. The respondent Government are invited to refer to specific provisions of domestic law and to provide relevant examples of the case-law of domestic courts in this respect.

3. Have the absence of a periodic review of the applicant ’ s detention and of a possibility to take proceedings with an application for release resulted in a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?