Published on 20 December 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 42214/20 M.A. against Russia lodged on 24 September 2020 communicated on 1 December 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Tajik national. He came to Russia on unspecified date and obtained Russian citizenship in 2007. He was living in Russia ever since and acquired property. The applicant has a minor son, who is a Russian citizen and resides in Russia.

On 8 May 2020 the applicant’s citizenship was revoked.

On 11 November 2020 the applicant’s stay in Russia was declared undesirable. On 29 December 2020 deportation order was issued in his respect. Enforcement of the deportation was suspended by the domestic courts until the deportation order was confirmed on appeal by a final decision of 17 May 2021.

The applicant’s request for refugee status was not accepted for examination on merits. His request for temporary asylum was dismissed. The applicant challenged these decisions before higher migration authority, to no avail.

On 28 May 2021 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Russia for the duration of the proceedings before it. Information about interim measure was published on the Court’s secure website at 4.14 p.m., Moscow time. The same day at 4.28 p.m., Moscow time, while aforementioned temporary asylum proceedings in respect of the applicant were pending, the deportation order was enforced.

As submitted by the applicant’s representatives, the applicant was arrested upon his arrival to Tajikistan, questioned and then released. No criminal proceedings were initiated in his respect.

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to comply with their procedural obligation to consider his arguments regarding real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in Tajikistan; under Article 8 of the Convention about unjustified interference in his private and family life; and under Article 34 of the Convention, that his deportation was in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant present the Russian authorities, within deportation proceedings and temporary asylum proceedings, with substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in his country of origin? In these domestic proceedings, did the authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of the applicant’s claim about such risk (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, §§ 213-14, 28 June 2011; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 120, 23 March 2016; and Mamazhonov v. Russia , no. 17239/13, §§ 138-60, 23 October 2014)?

2. Has the applicant been deported while his temporary asylum proceedings were still pending? Do pending temporary asylum proceedings, administrative and judicial, bar any de facto removal, including deportation, of a person to his country of origin (see K.G. v. Russia , no. 31084/18, §§ 21, 28-30, 2 October 2018)?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life due to enforcement of the deportation order? If so, did such interference amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Üner v. The Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-60, 18 October 2006, and Usmanov v. Russia , no. 43936/18, §§ 43-80, 22 December 2020)?

4. In view of the applicant’s deportation to Tajikistan on 28 May 2021, has there been any hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention (compare with M.A. v. France , no. 9373/15, §§ 64-71, 1 February 2018, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 117 ‑ 28, 20 February 2007)?

4.1. Was the information on the interim measure issued by the Court, staying the applicant’s deportation to Tajikistan, brought to the attention of relevant authorities (officials carrying out the applicant’s deportation, police officers, border control, etc.) in the shortest possible time? If no, for what reasons?

4.2. If the relevant authorities did not comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 28 May 2021, what were the reasons for that?

The Government are invited to provide relevant documents in connection with the applicant’s transfer to the airport and further removal.