Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 7 March 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 46715/18
F.S.
against Turkey
lodged on 26 September 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a Tajik national, who allegedly fled his country for fear of persecution due to his religious and political convictions, in particular, his affiliation with the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan. The application concerns the applicant’s threatened expulsion to Tajikistan, and the alleged failure of the domestic courts to conduct a proper and timely assessment of his allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill-treatment if removed to his home country.
The applicant relies on Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention.
On 5 October 2018 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Turkey until 22 October 2018. The Court further decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 22 October 2018 the Court decided to prolong, until further notice, the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
QUESTION tO THE GOVERNMENT
1. Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation from Turkey? If so, is the country of destination Tajikistan?
QUESTIONS tO BOTH PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in connection with his complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the proceedings before the Istanbul Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court provide an effective remedy, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 and within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that neither of those remedies had an automatic suspensive effect at the material time by virtue of the changes brought about by sections 35 and 36 of the Decree Law no. 676 of 29 October 2016 (see A.M. v. the Netherlands, no. 29094/09, §§ 64-71, 5 July 2016)?
The parties are requested to provide information about the outcome of the proceedings pending before the administrative courts and the Constitutional Court in respect of the applicant’s threatened expulsion to Tajikistan.
2. Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention if he were to be deported to Tajikistan?
3. Did the national authorities and courts fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment if removed to Tajikistan, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, §§ 95-108, 11 October 2011; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016; and Babajanov v. Turkey, no. 49867/08, §§ 41-49, 10 May 2016)?
Leave a Reply