THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 41135\/14
\nIsmon Sharofovich AZIMOV
\nagainst Russia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17\u00a0September 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nGilberto Felici, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2014,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by Ms D. Trenina,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The circumstances of the caseand the Court\u2019s judgment in Mr\u00a0Azimov\u2019s earlier case (Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474\/11, 18\u00a0April\u00a02013)<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant had been living and working in Russia since 2002. He however made regular visits to Tajikistan where his family lived.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 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 \u2013 first, the \u201cBay\u2019at\u201d group and then the \u201cIslamic Movement of Uzbekistan\u201d (\u201cthe IMU\u201d).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 June 2011 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia ordered the applicant\u2019s extradition to Tajikistan.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 March 2011 the Federal Migration Service (\u201cthe FMS\u201d) rejected the applicant\u2019s application for refugee status. On 30\u00a0November\u00a02011 the Moscow City Court upheld the refusal in the final instance.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 November 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extradition order in the final instance.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 December 2011 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the administrative removal order in the final instance.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 May 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens in the Moscow Region.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In its judgment of 18 April 2013 the Court found that the applicant\u2019s 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 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474\/11, 18 April 2013).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 September 2013 that judgment became final.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The applicant\u2019s alleged disappearance<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 May 2013 the applicant applied for temporary asylum, referring to the Court\u2019s judgment of 18 April 2013.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 September 2013 the applicant was granted temporary asylum for a year.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant\u2019s representative, at about 8 p.m. on 3\u00a0December 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\u2019s 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\u2019s representative.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the applicant\u2019s representative informed the border control authorities and the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights about the applicant\u2019s abduction and asked to prevent his unlawful transfer through the Russian border.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s current whereabouts are unknown.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The investigation into the applicant\u2019s alleged abduction and disappearance<\/strong><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 December 2013 the Vyshnevolotskiy Investigations Committee of the Tver Region opened criminal proceedings into the applicant\u2019s abduction.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 May 2014 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u2019 car had been filmed by any street cameras or radar speed cameras before or after the abduction with the aim of establishing the car\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0According to the information submitted by the applicant\u2019s representative, on 24 June 2016 the investigation into the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s wife and declared the applicant a missing person.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Proceedings before the Court<\/strong><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 June 2014 Ms Trenina lodged an application in Mr Azimov\u2019s 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\u2019s wife, Ms\u00a0N.\u00a0Azimova, 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\u2019s disappearance had not been effective. No separate complaint was lodged in the name of the applicant\u2019s wife, either on her own or on her husband\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u00a0Azimov 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.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 July 2015 the Government submitted their observations.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 September 2015 Ms Trenina submitted the observations on the matter maintaining the complaints on Mr Azimov\u2019s behalf and claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 October 2015 the Government provided comments on the claims for just satisfaction. They also stated that the applicant\u2019s representative could not, on her own motion, lodge an application with the Court on the applicant\u2019s behalf and that only his relatives had that right.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 November 2015 the Government\u2019s letter was sent to Ms\u00a0Trenina for information.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 March 2017 Ms Trenina submitted information concerning the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant (see paragraph 26 above).<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 February 2018 Ms Trenina replied that the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0Ms Trenina maintained that Mr Azimov complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the applicant\u2019s alleged abduction and presumed forcible transfer to Tajikistan despite the Court\u2019s finding that his return to Tajikistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Ms\u00a0Trenina 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.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/p>\n A. The Government\u2019s preliminary objection<\/strong><\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0 The Government contended that the applicant\u2019s representative could not on her own motion lodge an application with the Court on the applicant\u2019s behalf and that only the applicant\u2019s relatives have that right.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Trenina submitted that the applicant\u2019s representatives maintain contact with his wife, Ms Nodira Pulatzhonovna Azimova, who wishes to pursue the application in his interests.<\/p>\n B. The Court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s next-of-kin to submit an application (see Lambert and Others v.\u00a0France [GC], no. 46043\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 89-90, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The Court also notes, however, that the original application form of 3 June 2014 contained complaints about the alleged violations only on the applicant\u2019s behalf, as submitted by Ms Trenina. Even though it contained an authority form signed by the applicant\u2019s wife, it did not include separate complaints lodged either on her own behalf or in her husband\u2019s 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\u00a0Trenina irrelevant for the present analysis.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u00a052286\/14, 5 July 2016). In particular, referring to the principles developed the case of Lambert and Others v. France [GC], cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a089-95 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\u2019s representative to act in the name and on behalf of Mr Isakov.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0Similarly, 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, in these circumstances, the Court holds that Ms\u00a0Trenina 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\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 10 October 2019.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n