Last Updated on November 20, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MUMANZHINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 724/18 and 8 others –see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 October 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mumanzhinova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in nine applications (nos. 724/18, 736/18, 13199/18, 13203/18, 13204/18, 13206/18, 13207/18, 22250/18 and 22258/18) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms Y.V. Aksenova, a lawyer practising in Volgograd. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. Between 26 June 2018 and 4 September 2018 the notice of the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible.
4. The Government submitted their observations in cases Mumazhinova v. Russia, no. 724/18, Mumazhinov v. Russia, no. 736/18, Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18, Glazatov v. Russia, no. 13204/18, Krivtsov v. Russia, no. 13207/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18. They further informed the Court that they did not wish to submit observations in applications Gaak v. Russia, no. 13199/18, Imranov v. Russia, no. 13206/18 and Galitskiy v. Russia, no. 22250/18.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants’ names, dates of birth, the dates on which their applications were introduced, application numbers, as well as the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix.
6. On various dates the Russian authorities initiated removal proceedings against the applicants and placed them in detention pending removal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
7. For relevant provisions of the domestic law and practice, see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 23-25, 17 July 2014.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicants complained that their detention pending removal had been unlawful and that the domestic proceedings lacked diligence within the meaning of the exception provided for by Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law…
(f) the lawful arrest or detention … of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition …”
10. The Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
11. The Court notes that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other ground. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
12. The applicants argued that their detention pending removal had been devoid of purpose and unlawful and that the domestic proceedings lacked requisite diligence.
13. The Government in their observations in cases Mumazhinova v. Russia, no. 724/18, Mumazhinov v. Russia, no. 736/18, Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18, Glazatov v. Russia, no. 13204/18, Krivtsov v. Russia, no. 13207/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 argued that the applicants’ detention had been in compliance with Article 5 § 1 (f) requirements.
14. The Court reiterates that the exception contained in sub‑paragraph (f) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention requires only that “action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition”, without any further justification (see, inter alia, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑V), and that deprivation of liberty will be justified as long as deportation or extradition proceedings are in progress (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009). If such proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible (see Chahal, cited above § 113; see also Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 74, ECHR 2007-II). In asking whether “action is being taken with a view to deportation”, this Court has found that removal must be a realistic prospect (see A. and Others, cited above, § 167, and Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 144, 12 February 2013).
15. The question of whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, mutatis mutandis, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-45, ECHR 2006‑X) and that the arguments for and against release must not be “general and abstract” (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 173, ECHR 2005‑X (extracts)), but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant’s personal circumstances justifying his detention.
16. Bearing these principles in mind the Court will proceed with examining each case individually having regard to the relevant facts presented in the Appendix.
1. Mumanzhinova v. Russia, no. 724/18
17. The applicant was detained for almost fifteen months between 10 February 2016 and 28 June 2017. While initially the authorities were reasonably active in taking actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, there is no information about any action, except for inter-agency correspondence, from 22 September 2016 when the Consular Services of Tajikistan stated that the applicant had no nationality of that country. Accordingly, the Russian authorities did not exercise the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, for the last nine months of the applicant’s detention.
2. Mumanzhinov v. Russia, no. 736/18
18. The applicant was detained for almost fifteen months between 10 February 2016 and 28 June 2017. While initially the authorities were reasonably active in taking actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, there is no information about any action, except for inter-agency correspondence, from 22 September 2016 when the Consular Services of Tajikistan stated that the applicant has no nationality of that country. Accordingly, the Russian authorities did not exercise the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, for the last nine months of the applicant’s detention.
3. Gaak v. Russia, no. 13199/18
19. The applicant was detained for over two years between 6 July 2016 and 17 July 2018. While initially the authorities were reasonably active in taking actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, there is no information about any action from 22 September 2017 when the Consular Services of Belarus stated that the applicant had no nationality of that country. Accordingly, the Russian authorities did not exercise the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, for the last ten months of the applicant’s detention.
4. Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18
20. The applicant was detained for nine months between 9 December 2016 and 15 September 2017. The Court is mindful that the applicant neither objected to his initial detention, nor attempted to seek release until 6 June 2017 and that between December 2016 and May 2017 the authorities were reasonably active in taking actions with a view to the applicant’s removal. However, from 12 April 2017 when the Ministry of Interior of Kazakhstan unequivocally stated that the applicant’s readmission to that country would not be possible the authorities did not take any substantive action, except for inter-agency correspondence and database verifications. Accordingly, the Russian authorities did not exercise the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, for the last three months of the applicant’s detention, i.e. since the hearing on 6 June 2017 in the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd.
5. Glazatov v. Russia, no. 13204/18
21. The applicant was detained for less than eleven months between 2 May 2017 and 22 March 2018. During this period the authorities were active in taking actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, they made consistent attempts to establish the applicant’s identity and citizenship, and released him once reasonable efforts proved fruitless. There is no evidence demonstrating that the applicant’s detention was carried in bad faith, tainted by unjustified delays or otherwise arbitrary. Accordingly, the Russian authorities exercised the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, in these proceedings.
6. Imranov v. Russia, no. 13206/18
22. The applicant was detained for two years between 18 May 2016 and 31 May 2018. While initially the authorities were reasonably active in taking actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, there is no information about any action, except for sporadic inter-agency correspondence, from 23 August 2016 when the Consular Services of Azerbaijan stated that the applicant had no nationality of that country. Accordingly, the Russian authorities did not exercise the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, for twenty one months of the applicant’s detention.
7. Krivtsov v. Russia, no. 13207/18
23. The applicant was detained for thirteen months between 14 August 2016 and 30 August 2018. While the authorities took certain actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, these actions were of the repetitive nature and isolated by months of unexplained inactivity. After 24 January 2017 when the Consular Services of Kazakhstan stated that the applicant had no nationality of that country, it should have become apparent to the authorities that there had been no progress in expulsion proceedings. Accordingly, the Russian authorities did not exercise the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, for nineteen months of the applicant’s detention.
8. Galitskiy v. Russia, no. 22250/18
24. The applicant was detained for less than nine months between 11 September 2017 and 8 June 2018. During this period the authorities were active in taking actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, they made consistent attempts to establish the applicant’s identity and citizenship, and released him once reasonable efforts proved fruitless. There is no evidence demonstrating that the applicant’s detention was carried in bad faith, tainted by unjustified delays or otherwise arbitrary. Accordingly, the Russian authorities exercised the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, in these proceedings.
9. Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18
25. The applicant was detained for thirteen months between 14 December 2016 and 22 January 2018. While the authorities took certain actions with a view to the applicant’s removal, these actions were of the repetitive nature and isolated by months of unexplained inactivity. In any event by November 2017 it should have become apparent to the authorities that there had been no progress in readmission proceedings, the conclusion reached by the domestic courts in January 2018. Accordingly, the Russian authorities did not exercise the due diligence, requisite under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, at the very least for the last three months of the applicant’s detention. The fact that the applicant’s readmission eventually took place on 15 June 2018 does not alter the Court’s above conclusions about the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention between November 2017 and 22 January 2018.
26. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the cases Mumazhinova v. Russia, no. 724/18, Mumazhinov v. Russia, no. 736/18, Gaak v. Russia, no. 13199/18, Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18, Imranov v. Russia, no. 13206/18, Krivtsov v. Russia, no. 13207/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 and no violation of that provision in the cases Glazatov v. Russia, no. 13204/18 and Galitskiy v. Russia, no. 22250/18.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
27. The applicants in the cases Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about allegedly excessive length of appeal review of certain detention orders.
28. The Government did not submit any observations on this point.
29. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
30. In the case Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18 the detention order of 20 July 2017 by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd was reviewed on appeal on 13 September 2017 by the Volgograd Regional Court, i.e. 54 days later. In the case Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 the detention order of 25 October 2017 by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd was reviewed on appeal on 13 December 2017 by the Volgograd Regional Court, i.e. 49 days later.
31. Having regard to its consistent case-law on the matter, the submissions of the applicant and absence of the Government’s submissions contesting his arguments, the Court finds that in absence of a persuasive justification for the delays the length of appeal review for the above orders had been excessively long. Therefore in the cases Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
32. Lastly, the applicants complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about an alleged lack of judicial review of their detention pending removal from Russia. The Court having regard to all of the available material, the arguments of the parties and its case-law on the matter concludes that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
33. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
34. The applicants claimed non-pecuniary damage, but left the amount to be awarded at the discretion of the Court.
35. The Government stated that in case the Court finds a violation of the applicants’ rights the awards should be consistent with the established practice on the matter.
36. The Court having regard to all available material, the nature of the violations found in the applicant’s cases, the length of the applicants’ detention pending removal and acting on the equitable basis awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the Appendix in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
37. Having regard to the applicants’ requests, the above amounts should be payable to the applicants’ representative Ms Y. V. Aksenova to be held in trust for them.
B. Costs and expenses
38. The applicants, except for the cases Mumazhinova v. Russia, no. 724/18 and Mumazhinov v. Russia, no. 736/18, also claimed between 1,576 and 2,559 euros (EUR) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
39. The Government stated the cases were of the repetitive nature and that in case the Court finds a violation of the applicants’ rights the awards should be consistent with the established practice on the matter.
40. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, its case-law on the matter and the repetitive nature of the cases, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 5,000 jointly to the applicants in cases Gaak v. Russia, no. 13199/18, Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18, Imranov v. Russia, no. 13206/18, Krivtsov v. Russia, no. 13207/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 to cover costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court. The above amount should be payable directly to their representative Ms Y.V. Aksenova.
41. In cases Mumazhinova v. Russia, no. 724/18 and Mumazhinov v. Russia, no. 736/18 the applicants had not claimed costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. Therefore there is no call to award them any sum in this regard.
C. Default interest
42. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the alleged unlawful detention under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and the complaints concerning the excessive length of appeal review for certain detention orders under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the cases Mumazhinova v. Russia, no. 724/18, Mumazhinov v. Russia, no. 736/18, Gaak v. Russia, no. 13199/18, Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18, Imranov v. Russia, no. 13206/18, Krivtsov v. Russia, no. 13207/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the cases Glazatov v. Russia, no. 13204/18 and Galitskiy v. Russia, no. 22250/18;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the cases Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 on account of the excessive length of appeal review of certain detention orders;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the sums awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage and indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that the above amounts shall be paid to the applicants’ representative to be held in trust for the applicants;
(c) that EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) be awarded jointly to the applicants in cases Gaak v. Russia, no. 13199/18, Gekkel v. Russia, no. 13203/18, Imranov v. Russia, no. 13206/18, Krivtsov v. Russia, no. 13207/18 and Pak v. Russia, no. 22258/18 to cover costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court and this sum be payable directly to the applicants’ representative;
(d) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Alena Poláčková
Registrar President
____________________
APPENDIX
No. |
Application no.
Lodged on Applicant name Date of birth Nationality Represented by |
Removal proceedings and detention pending removal | Actions of the Russian authorities aimed at the applicant’s removal | Just satisfaction award |
| 1. | 724/18
01/12/2017
MUMANZHINOVA Natalya Semenovna 10/09/1957 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
10 February 2016 – expulsion and detention pending expulsion ordered by the Rudnyanskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
21 February 2017 – the applicant’s request for termination of expulsion proceedings dismissed by the Rudnyanskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
18 May 2017 – the lower court’s decisions annulled and reconsideration ordered by the Volgograd Regional Court
14 June 2017 – enforcement of the removal order terminated by the Rudnyanskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
28 June 2017 – the applicant released
|
11 February 2016 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Service of the Embassy of Tajikistan to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document for the applicant
28 March 2016 – enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bailiff’s Service
12 September 2016 – the migration authorities repeatedly requested the Consular Service of the Embassy of Tajikistan to issue a travel document for the applicant
22 September 2016 – the Consular Service of the Embassy of Tajikistan in Russia informed the Russian authorities that the applicant had no Tajik citizenship
25 November 2016 – the migration authorities informed the Bailiff’s Service that actions were taken to establish the applicant’s nationality
17 February 2017 – the migration authorities issued a formal opinion that the applicant satisfies the legal criteria for stateless persons, who may apply for Russian citizenship |
EUR 3,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a violation of the rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
|
| 2. | 736/18
01/12/2017
MUMANZHINOV Ruslan Yusupovich 16/03/1984 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
10 February 2016 – expulsion and detention pending expulsion ordered by the Rudnyanskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
6 March 2017 – the applicant’s request for termination of expulsion proceedings dismissed by the Rudnyanskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
18 May 2017 – lower court’s decisions annulled and reconsideration ordered by the Volgograd Regional Court
16 June 2017 – enforcement of the removal order terminated by the Rudnyanskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
28 June 2017 – the applicant released |
11 February 2016 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Service of the Embassy of Tajikistan to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document for the applicant
28 March 2016 – enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bailiff’s Service
12 September 2016 – the migration authorities repeatedly requested the Consular Service of the Embassy of Tajikistan to issue a travel document for the applicant
22 September 2016 – the Consular Service of the Embassy of Tajikistan in Russia informed the Russian authorities that the applicant had no Tajik citizenship
25 November 2016 – the migration authorities informed the Bailiff’s Service that actions were taken to establish the applicant’s nationality
17 February 2017 – the migration authorities issued a formal opinion that the applicant satisfied the legal criteria for stateless persons, who might apply for Russian citizenship |
EUR 3,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a violation of the rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
|
| 3. | 13199/18
06/03/2018
GAAK Vadim Yakovlevich 21/04/1966 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
6 July 2016 – expulsion and detention pending expulsion ordered by the Svetloyarskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
2 August 2017 and 11 December 2017 – the applicant’s requests for termination of expulsion proceedings dismissed by the Svetloyarskiy District Court of Volgograd Region with reference to possible further actions in expulsion proceedings
17 July 2018 – the applicant released
|
Unspecified date in July-August 2016 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Services of the Embassies of Kazakhstan and Ukraine to verify the applicant’s citizenship of the respective countries and issue a travel document for the applicant
17 August 2016 – enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bailiff’s Service
10 November 2016 – the Consular Services of the Embassy of Kazakhstan informed the Russian authorities that the applicant had no Kazakh citizenship
Unspecified date – the Consular Service of Ukraine in Rostov-on-Don informed the Russian authorities that the applicant’s citizenship could not be verified
5 May and 29 October 2017 – the Bailiff’s Service requested the migration authorities to collect documents necessary to ensure the applicant’s expulsion, including determination of the destination country
Unspecified date – the migration authorities issued a letter stating that the applicant had no identity document and his expulsion could not be enforced at that moment
22 September 2017 – the Consular Service of the Embassy of Belarus replied that they had no information whether the applicant had citizenship of Belarus and advised to contact directly the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Belarus |
EUR 3,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
|
| 4. | 13203/18
06/03/2018
GEKKEL Yevgeniy Viktorovich 01/03/1981 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
14 January 2015 – the applicant’s stay in Russia declared undesirable by the Ministry of Justice
1 December 2016 – readmission procedure initiated and the applicant placed in detention pending removal by the Volgograd Regional Department of the Ministry of Interior
9 December 2016 – detention pending readmission ordered by the Dzezhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, the applicant did not object during the hearing and did not appeal the order
6 June 2017 – detention pending readmission extended by 40 days by the Dzezhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, the applicant’s objections dismissed
20 July 2017 – detention pending readmission extended by 60 days by the Dzezhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, the applicant’s objections dismissed
13 September 2017 – the Volgograd Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of 20 July 2017
15 September 2017 – the Dzezhinskiy District Court of Volgograd refused to extend the applicant’s detention due to lack of progress in readmission proceedings and released the applicant
|
23 December 2016 – the migration authorities sent a readmission request to the Ministry of Interior of Kazakhstan
12 January 2017 – the Ministry of Interior of Kazakhstan replied that readmission would not be possible, since there was no information on the applicant being a Kazakh citizen or any database records about him or his relatives in the last 20 years
30 January 2017 – repeated interview of the applicant was ordered to verify his place of residence in Kazakhstan
22 March 2017 – the migration authorities on the basis of the interview results sent a repeated readmission request to the Ministry of Interior of Kazakhstan
12 April 2017 – the Ministry of Interior of Kazakhstan replied that readmission would not be possible for the above reasons and that the previous decision is final
30 May 2017 – regional migration authorities requested assistance of the central authorities and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in determination of the destination country for the applicant
1 June 2017 – further attempts to verify the applicant’s identity were made with the use of police fingerprints databases and cross-referencing them with identity databases
20 June 2017 – central migration authorities requested repeated interviewing of the applicant, documents establishing the applicant’s citizenship and replies of the consular services; the requested documents were forwarded to them on 11 July 2017
31 July 2017 – the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s administrative action against the migration authorities for their inaction and unjustified delays in readmission proceedings, establishing his identity and destination country
5 October 2017 – the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment |
EUR 4,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention
|
| 5. | 13204/18
06/03/2018
GLAZATOV Sergey Stanislavovich 13/12/1971 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA Volgograd
|
2 May 2017 – expulsion and detention pending expulsion ordered by the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd
12 January 2018 – the applicant’s request for termination of expulsion proceedings dismissed by the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd with reference to possible further actions in expulsion proceedings
31 January 2018 – the lower court’s decision upheld by the Volgograd Regional Court
22 March 2018 – enforcement of the removal order terminated and the applicant released by the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd
|
12 May 2017 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Service of the Embassy of Uzbekistan to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document for the applicant
19 May 2017 – enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bailiff’s Service
20-25 October 2017 – requests for identity document sent to the applicant’s former employer, criminal courts which had considered cases against him, and the penitentiary facilities where he served his sentence
30 October 2017 – the Bailiff’s Service requested the migration authorities to collect documents necessary to ensure the applicant’s expulsion, including determination of the destination country
13 November 2017 – the migration authorities repeatedly requested the Consular Service of the Embassy of Uzbekistan to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document for the applicant
13 March 2018 – the Consular Service of the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Russia informed the Russian authorities that the applicant had no Uzbek citizenship |
|
| 6. | 13206/18
06/03/2018
IMRANOV Fazail Nuraddin ogly 01/10/1967 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
18 May 2016 – expulsion and detention pending expulsion ordered by the Gorodishchenskiy District Court of Volgograd Region
14 August 2017 – the applicant’s request for termination of expulsion proceedings dismissed by the Gorodishchenskiy District Court of Volgograd Region with reference to absence of “impossibility to enforce” as a legal ground for termination of proceedings
19 September 2017 – the lower court’s judgment upheld on appeal by the Volgograd Regional Court
31 May 2018 – the applicant released |
23 May 2016 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Service of the Embassy of Azerbaijan to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document for the applicant
23 August 2016 – the Consular Service of the Embassy of Azerbaijan informed the migration authorities that the applicant had no Azeri citizenship
1 April 2017 – the Bailiff’s Service requested the migration authorities to collect documents necessary to ensure the applicant’s expulsion, including determination of the destination country |
EUR 7,500 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention
|
| 7. | 13207/18
06/03/2018
KRIVTSOV Sergey Viktorovich 18/08/1965 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
16 August 2016 – expulsion and detention pending expulsion ordered by the Svetloyarskiy District Court of Volgograd Region, the applicant did not object during the hearing and did not appeal the order
7 September 2017 – the applicant’s request for termination of expulsion proceedings dismissed by the Svetloyarskiy District Court of Volgograd Region with reference to possible further actions in expulsion proceedings
6 October 2017 – the lower court’s judgment upheld on appeal by the Volgograd Regional Court
12 January 2018 – the Volgograd Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action for the review of the judgement of 16 August 2016
30 August 2018 – the applicant was released |
1 September 2016 – enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bailiff’s Service
2 September 2016 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Services of Kazakhstan in Russia to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document
7 September 2016 – migration authorities requested internal affairs authorities at the place of the applicant’s residence to verify whether he had Russian citizenship
24 January 2017 – the Consular Service of Kazakhstan informed the migration authorities that the applicant had no Kazakh citizenship
15 February and 7 July 2017 – the Bailiff’s Service requested the migration authorities to collect documents necessary to ensure the applicant’s expulsion, including determination of the destination country
30 November 2017 – the migration authorities repeatedly requested the Consular Services of Kazakhstan in Russia to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document
22 December 2017 – the Consular Service of Kazakhstan repeatedly informed the migration authorities that the applicant had no Kazakh citizenship; the reply further stated that a request might also be submitted directly to the internal affairs authorities in Kazakhstan
29 August and 14 December 2017, 24 July 2018 – the migration authorities repeatedly requested the competent authorities of Kazakhstan to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country |
EUR 6,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
|
| 8. | 22250/18
28/04/2018
GALITSKIY Yuriy Mikhailovich 12/05/1974 Stateless
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
14 December 2016 – the applicant’s stay in Russia declared undesirable by the Ministry of Justice
23 August 2017 – the applicant released on parole having partially served his criminal sentence for aggravated murder
4 September 2017 – deportation ordered by the migration authorities
11 September 2017 – detention pending deportation ordered by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd
7 December 2017, 5 February and 6 April 2018 – detention period extended by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd
8 June 2018 – the applicant released
|
6 September 2017 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Services of the Embassies of Belarus, Moldova and Germany to verify the applicant’s citizenship of the respective countries and issue a travel document
22 September 2017 – the Consular Service of the Embassy of Belarus replied that they had no information whether the applicant had citizenship of Belarus and advised to contact directly the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Belarus
20 October 2017 – the migration authorities requested the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Belarus to verify the applicant’s citizenship
28 November 2017 – the Vitebsk Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Belarus replied that they had no information whether the applicant had citizenship of Belarus; they further stated that his Belarus citizenship could not be established in absence of the proof that he had no other citizenships; lastly they advised to contact diplomatic services of Belarus for further assistance
4 December 2017 – the migration authorities repeatedly requested the Consular Services of the Embassies of Moldova and Germany to verify the applicant’s citizenship of the respective countries and issue a travel document
December 2017 – January 2018 – further attempts to verify the applicant’s identity were made with the use of police fingerprints databases and cross-referencing them with identity databases
22 January 2018 – the migration authorities requested the Consular Services of the Embassy of Belarus to carry further verification of the applicant’s citizenship of that country and to issue a travel document
24 February 2018 – the Consular Service of the Embassy of Belarus requested a list of documents required for verification of the applicant’s citizenship; the documents were to be submitted to a regional branch of the Embassy
26 March 2018 – the migration authorities submitted the new request with the list of required documents to the Embassy of Belarus |
|
| 9. | 22258/18
28/04/2018
PAK Vladislav Albertovich 12/06/1996 Uzbekistan
Ms Y.V. AKSENOVA
|
19 September 2016 – the applicant’s stay in Russia declared undesirable by the Ministry of Justice
13 December 2016 – readmission procedure initiated by the Volgograd Regional Department of the Ministry of Interior
14 December 2016 – the applicant placed in detention pending removal by the Volgograd Regional Department of the Ministry of Interior
20 December 2016 – detention pending readmission ordered by the Dzezhinskiy District Court of Volgograd
20 June 2017 – detention pending readmission extended by 60 days by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, the applicant’s objections dismissed
22 August 2017 – detention pending readmission extended by 60 days by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, the applicant’s objections dismissed
25 October 2017 – detention pending readmission extended by 90 days by the Dzezhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, the applicant’s objections dismissed
13 December 2017 – lower court’s order upheld on appeal by the Volgograd Regional Court
22 January 2018 – the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd refused to extend the applicant’s detention due to lack of progress in readmission proceedings and released the applicant
18 May 2018 – the migration authorities issued a readmission decision
15 June 2018 – the readmission decision was enforced and the applicant transferred to Uzbekistan |
23 December 2016 – the migration authorities sent a readmission request to the Ministry of Interior of Uzbekistan
Unspecified date in 2017 – the Ministry of Interior of Uzbekistan refused the readmission request
2 August 2017 – the migration authorities sent a repeated readmission request to the Ministry of Interior of Uzbekistan
20 November 2017 – the migration authorities sent a repeated readmission request to the Ministry of Interior of Uzbekistan and requested the Consular Services of Uzbekistan in Russia to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document
26 March 2018 – the migration authorities repeatedly requested the Consular Service of Uzbekistan in Russia to verify the applicant’s citizenship of that country and issue a travel document
24 April 2018 – the Consular Service of Uzbekistan in Russia confirmed Uzbek citizenship of the applicant
17 May 2018 – a travel document was issued to the applicant |
EUR 4,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention
|
Leave a Reply