Published on 9 May 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 26760/21 S.B. against Russia lodged on 27 May 2021 communicated on 10 March 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, Ms S.B., is a national of Uzbekistan, who was born in 1979 and is currently detained in the temporary detention centre for aliens in the Krasnodar Region, Russia. She is represented by Ms E. Davidyan, Ms D. Trenina and Mr K. Zharinov, lawyers practising in Moscow.

The application concerns the possible removal of the applicant from Russia to Uzbekistan, her allegedly unlawful detention pending removal proceedings, and her right to respect for her family life.

The applicant moved to Russia in 2008 together with her husband and their 3-year-old child. Their second child was born in Russia in 2009. In 2015 the applicant and her family moved to Crimea.

The applicant alleges that on 11 May 2021 her husband was killed in a special operation conducted by the Federal Security Service of Russia (hereinafter - FSB) in Crimea.

On 12 May 2021 the “Sovetskiy District Court of Crimea” convicted the applicant of violating migration rules and ordered her administrative removal and detention in a temporary detention centre for aliens pending her removal.

On 27 May 2021 the Court granted the applicant’s request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court in respect of her removal. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should not be removed to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

On 28 May 2021 the “Supreme Court of Crimea” upheld the decision of the “Sovetskiy District Court” but stated that the Court’s decision to grant an interim measure has a suspensive effect on the enforcement of the removal decision.

In their decisions the domestic courts referred to information which was apparently obtained from the FSB and which allegedly indicated that the applicant had participated in terrorism-related activities “in the territory of Russia” since 2010, aiding her husband in spreading extremist and terrorist ideology, and in enlisting others in the activities of international terrorist organisations, including “taking part in the activities of a secret cell of Hizb ‑ ut-Tahrir”, an organisation prohibited in Russia.

In its decision of 12 May 2021 the “Sovetskiy District Court” stated that the applicant’s children had been residing with the applicant in the Leninskiy Region, Crimea, and ordered the relevant authorities to determine an appropriate place of residence for the children following the applicant’s detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In the light of the general situation in Uzbekistan and the applicant’s personal circumstances, as the widow of a person convicted of terrorist offences, and information apparently submitted by the FSB to domestic courts, would the applicant face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of her administrative removal to her country of origin (see Mamazhonov v. Russia , no. 17239/13, §§ 139-41, 23 October 2014; Kholmurodov v. Russia , no. 58923/14, §§ 46 ‑ 50, 1 March 2016; Yusupov v. Russia , no. 30227/18, §§ 48-51, 1 December 2020; and A.K. and Others v. Russia , nos. 38042/18, 44546/18, 20033/19, §§ 43-45, 18 May 2021)?

2. Before deciding on the applicant’s removal, did the Russian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of her claim about the risks of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in her country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 214, 28 June 2011, and F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 119, 23 March 2016)?

3. Have the Russian authorities already informed the Uzbek authorities about the applicant’s possible involvement in terrorist activities as the reason for her undesirable presence in Russia and/or of her removal or will they provide this information to the Uzbek authorities in future?

4. Has the applicant’s detention been compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention ( Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013, and Oshlakov v. Russia , no. 56662/09, § 115, 3 April 2014)?

5. Did the applicant have at her disposal a procedure for review of the lawfulness of her continued detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

6. Would the applicant’s administrative removal constitute an interference with her right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? Did the courts make a balancing exercise between the need to protect national security and the applicants’ right to respect for her family life? Did the courts adequately consider the family ties both of the applicant and her children with Russia?

7. What was the outcome of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request(s) for refugee status?

The parties are requested to submit a copy of all relevant documents: 1) in respect of the current state of removal proceedings and the applicant’s detention; 2) documents relating to the applicant’s request(s) for refugee status; 3) other relevant documents in the case files.

The Government are invited to provide copies of decisions in which persons whose removal from Russia was ordered on national security grounds were able to challenge successfully the decisions concerning their removal.