Last Updated on November 22, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41135/14
Ismon Sharofovich AZIMOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 September 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2014,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by Ms D. Trenina,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Ismon Sharofovich Azimov, is a Tajikistani national, who was born in 1979. The application in his name was submitted to the Court by Ms D. Trenina, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the caseand the Court’s judgment in Mr Azimov’s earlier case (Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013)
3. The applicant had been living and working in Russia since 2002. He however made regular visits to Tajikistan where his family lived.
4. On 26 March 2009 the Tajikistani authorities opened a criminal case against the applicant on charges of anti-government armed conspiracy. Specifically, the applicant was accused of being a member of several opposition movements responsible for armed riots – first, the “Bay’at” group and then the “Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan” (“the IMU”).
5. On 3 November 2010 the applicant was arrested in the town of Dolgoprudniy in the Moscow Region, in connection with the international search warrant against him.
6. On 23 June 2011 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia ordered the applicant’s extradition to Tajikistan.
7. On 23 March 2011 the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) rejected the applicant’s application for refugee status. On 30 November 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the refusal in the final instance.
8. On 2 November 2011 the Dolgoprudniy Town Court of the Moscow Region found the applicant guilty of unlawful residence in Russia, an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and ordered his administrative removal from Russia.
9. On 9 November 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extradition order in the final instance.
10. On 6 December 2011 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the administrative removal order in the final instance.
11. On 4 May 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens in the Moscow Region.
12. In its judgment of 18 April 2013 the Court found that the applicant’s forced return to Tajikistan (in the form of extradition, expulsion or otherwise) would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court also found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013).
13. On 9 September 2013 that judgment became final.
B. The applicant’s alleged disappearance
14. According to the applicant’s representative, in the beginning of 2012 his relatives in Tajikistan received threats from Tajikistani authorities. They were told, in particular, that the applicant would be kidnapped from Russia.
15. On 31 May 2013 the applicant applied for temporary asylum, referring to the Court’s judgment of 18 April 2013.
16. On the same day he applied to the Moscow Regional Department of the FMS for permission to reside in the Serebryaniki Temporary Accomodation Centre for Immigrants in the Tver region. He stated that he was afraid of being abducted by the Tajikistani authorities and asked for protection. In particular, he asked that he be accompanied by guards during the transfer from the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens to the Serebryaniki Temporary Accomodation Centre for Immigrants.
17. On 18 September 2013 the applicant was granted temporary asylum for a year.
18. On 19 September 2013 the applicant was transferred from the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens to the Serebryaniki Temporary Accomodation Centre for Immigrants. He was guarded by the FMS officers during the transfer.
19. According to the applicant’s representative, at about 8 p.m. on 3 December 2013 five persons dressed in uniform entered the Serebryaniki Centre after having told the concierge that they were from the police. They went directly to the applicant’s room, beat him up, dragged him out and forced him into a minivan with registration number plate X823HO69. The employees of the Serebryaniki Centre immediately called the police and the applicant’s representative.
20. On the same day the applicant’s representative informed the border control authorities and the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights about the applicant’s abduction and asked to prevent his unlawful transfer through the Russian border.
21. The applicant’s current whereabouts are unknown.
C. The investigation into the applicant’s alleged abduction and disappearance
22. On 31 December 2013 the Vyshnevolotskiy Investigations Committee of the Tver Region opened criminal proceedings into the applicant’s abduction.
23. On 27 March 2014 the Tver Regional Investigations committee extended the investigation until 31 May 2014. The investigator noted that he had questioned the employees of the Serebryaniki Centre, had ordered a forensic fingerprint analysis, obtained information from communication providers about telephone connections in the vicinity of the Serebryaniki Centre at the moment of the abduction, sent a request for assistance to the Tajikistani authorities and several requests for information to various Russian authorities, in particular in order to establish the owner of the car with registration number plate X823HO69. The replies to the request for assistance and some of the requests for information had not been yet received and the forensic fingerprint analysis had not been yet completed. It was therefore necessary to extend the investigation.
24. On 19 May 2014 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.
25. On 26 May 2014 the Tver Regional Investigations committee extended the investigation until 30 June 2014. It had been established that registration number plate X823HO69 had not been attributed to any car and, according to official documents, had been destroyed. The investigator sent several requests for information, in particular to find out whether the kidnappers’ car had been filmed by any street cameras or radar speed cameras before or after the abduction with the aim of establishing the car’s itinerary. The replies to those requests had not been received yet. No reply had been received from the Tajikistani authorities. It was therefore necessary to extend the investigation.
26. According to the information submitted by the applicant’s representative, on 24 June 2016 the investigation into the applicant’s abduction was suspended because the alleged perpetrators could not be identified. Ms Trenina also submitted that on 20 December 2016 the Surgutskiy City Court of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District allowed the request by the applicant’s wife and declared the applicant a missing person.
D. Proceedings before the Court
27. On 3 June 2014 Ms Trenina lodged an application in Mr Azimov’s name, having submitted a copy of the the authority form issued and signed by Mr Azimov on 23 September 2011, in connection with his previous case before the Court (see paragraph 12 above). The applicant’s wife, Ms N. Azimova, was listed in the application form as a second applicant in the case. An authority form signed by her on 16 May 2014 was attached to the application form. Ms Trenina alleged, inter alia, that Mr Azimov had been abducted and forcefully removed to Tajikistan where he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. She also alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to take all necessary measures to protect the applicant from abduction and that the investigation into the applicant’s disappearance had not been effective. No separate complaint was lodged in the name of the applicant’s wife, either on her own or on her husband’s behalf.
28. On 27 March 2015 the Acting President of the Section gave notice of the application to the Government and invited the latter to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case in respect of Mr Azimov only. The Government were informed that the Acting President of the Section, sitting in a single-judge formation, declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.
29. On 17 July 2015 the Government submitted their observations.
30. On 22 September 2015 Ms Trenina submitted the observations on the matter maintaining the complaints on Mr Azimov’s behalf and claims for just satisfaction.
31. On 30 October 2015 the Government provided comments on the claims for just satisfaction. They also stated that the applicant’s representative could not, on her own motion, lodge an application with the Court on the applicant’s behalf and that only his relatives had that right.
32. On 5 November 2015 the Government’s letter was sent to Ms Trenina for information.
33. On 14 March 2017 Ms Trenina submitted information concerning the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant (see paragraph 26 above).
34. On 4 January 2018 the Court requested Ms Trenina to submit information concerning her contact with the applicant or his next of kin, his whereabouts or any relevant proceedings.
35. On 5 February 2018 Ms Trenina replied that the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown and that his representatives maintained contact with his wife who wished to pursue the application on his behalf. That letter was sent to the Government for information.
COMPLAINTS
36. Ms Trenina maintained that Mr Azimov complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the applicant’s alleged abduction and presumed forcible transfer to Tajikistan despite the Court’s finding that his return to Tajikistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Ms Trenina also submitted that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. The Government’s preliminary objection
37. The Government contended that the applicant’s representative could not on her own motion lodge an application with the Court on the applicant’s behalf and that only the applicant’s relatives have that right.
38. Ms Trenina submitted that the applicant’s representatives maintain contact with his wife, Ms Nodira Pulatzhonovna Azimova, who wishes to pursue the application in his interests.
B. The Court’s assessment
39. The Court notes that the present case concerns alleged disappearance of the applicant and in such cases the Court has recognised the standing of the victim’s next-of-kin to submit an application (see Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
40. The Court also notes, however, that the original application form of 3 June 2014 contained complaints about the alleged violations only on the applicant’s behalf, as submitted by Ms Trenina. Even though it contained an authority form signed by the applicant’s wife, it did not include separate complaints lodged either on her own behalf or in her husband’s name (see paragraph 27 above). Therefore, Ms Azimova, having brought no complaints by herself or through Ms Trenina, was not named as a party to the proceedings, which makes the issue of her maintaining contact with Ms Trenina irrelevant for the present analysis.
41. It remains to be examined whether, in the circumstances of the present case, Ms Trenina may lodge an application with the Court in the name of and on behalf of Mr Azimov.
42. The Court notes that it has examined in detail an identical issue of locus standi in an earlier case before it concerning alleged abduction and disappearance of a national of Uzbekistan (see Isakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 52286/14, 5 July 2016). In particular, referring to the principles developed the case of Lambert and Others v. France [GC], cited above, §§ 89-95 and 102, ECHR 2015 (extracts), the Court found that even though Mr Isakov could be regarded as a vulnerable person who could not lodge the application before the Court, he was not at risk of being deprived of effective protection of his rights, since it remained open to his family members to bring the application on his and their own behalf and that no exceptional circumstances existed that would allow Mr Isakov’s representative to act in the name and on behalf of Mr Isakov.
43. Similarly, in the present case the Court considers that Mr Azimov can be regarded as a vulnerable person as he had been charged with politically motivated crimes in Tajikistan and was at risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition there. However, the Court does not discern any risk of Mr Azimov being deprived of effective protection of his rights since it remains open to his family members and his wife in particular, to bring the application on his and their own behalf. In this regard, the Court notes that the applicant’s wife lives in Russia, that she actively pursued proceedings on his behalf there (see paragraphs 26 above) and that it remains open to her to lodge a properly substantiated application before the Court, if she so wishes.
44. Accordingly, in these circumstances, the Court holds that Ms Trenina does not have standing to introduce the application in the name and on behalf of Mr Azimov. It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 October 2019.
Stephen Phillips Alena Poláčková
Registrar President
Leave a Reply