\nCASE OF A.B. v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 34804\/17)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n6 July 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of A.B. v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Georges Ravarani, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the application (no.\u00a034804\/17) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Turkmen national, Mr A.B. (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 9 June 2017;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d);<\/p>\n the decision not to have the applicant\u2019s name disclosed;<\/p>\n the decision to indicate interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule\u00a039 of the Rules of Court;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n 1. The present case concerns the applicant\u2019s pending removal to Turkmenistan where he allegedly faces a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in St Petersburg. He was represented by Ms O. Tseytlina, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.<\/p>\n 3. The Government were represented initially by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr A. Fedorov.<\/p>\n 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant is charged in Turkmenistan with religious extremism and extremist activities. On 23 May 2016 he was arrested in Russia under an international search warrant. Subsequently, the Turkmen authorities submitted an extradition request.<\/p>\n 6. On 26 December 2016 the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised the applicant\u2019s extradition to Turkmenistan. On 17\u00a0May 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld that decision by a final judgment. In the separate dissenting opinion joined to the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment, one judge argued with reference to the case of Allanazarova v. Russia (no. 46721\/15, 14 February 2017) that the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment in case of his extradition.<\/p>\n 7. The applicant\u2019s refugee status and temporary asylum requests proved to be unsuccessful.<\/p>\n RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK<\/p>\n 8. The relevant domestic and international law is summarised in the Court\u2019s judgments of Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no.\u00a071386\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a070\u2011101, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Akram Karimov v.\u00a0Russia (no.\u00a062892\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 69-105, 28 May 2014).<\/p>\n Reports on the situation in Turkmenistan<\/p>\n 9. The references to the relevant reports by the UN agencies and international NGOs on the situation in Turkmenistan were cited in the case of Allanazarova (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 40-55). Substantively similar findings were reproduced in the follow-up international reports of the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in 2018-20.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 10. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to consider his claims that he would face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in the event of his removal to Turkmenistan. Article 3 of the Convention reads:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 11. The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article\u00a035 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. General principles<\/em><\/p>\n 13. The relevant general principles concerning the application of Article\u00a03 have been summarised by the Court in the judgment in the case of F.G.\u00a0v.\u00a0Sweden ([GC], no. 43611\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 111-27, ECHR 2016).<\/p>\n 2. Application of those principles to the present cases<\/em><\/p>\n (a) Existence of substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of ill-treatment<\/p>\n 14. The Court has previously established that individuals whose criminal prosecution is pursued by the Turkmen authorities face a real risk of ill\u2011treatment in detention in Turkmenistan (see Allanazarova, cited above, \u00a7\u00a076). The Court notes that the recent international reports on the situation in Turkmenistan do not indicate any significant progress in this regard (see paragraph 9 above).<\/p>\n 15. Turning to the present case, it is apparent that in the course of the extradition proceedings the applicant specifically argued that he as a person prosecuted for religious extremism would face a risk of ill-treatment in detention in Turkmenistan. The Court further observes that the extradition request of the Turkmen authorities clearly proves the existence of the criminal prosecution and the risk of being placed in detention.<\/p>\n 16. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the Russian authorities had at their disposal sufficiently substantiated complaint pointing to a real risk of ill-treatment and, therefore, the applicant presented substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment in his country of origin.<\/p>\n (b) Duty to assess claims of a real risk of ill-treatment through reliance on sufficient relevant material<\/p>\n 17. Having concluded that the applicant had advanced at national level a valid claim based on substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must examine whether the authorities discharged their obligation to assess that claim adequately through reliance on sufficient relevant material.<\/p>\n 18. Turning to the present case, the Court considers that in the extradition proceedings the domestic authorities did not carry out a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant\u2019s claim. The Court reaches this conclusion having considered the national courts\u2019 laconic rejections of the applicant\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n 19. The Court therefore concludes that the Russian authorities failed to assess the applicant\u2019s claim adequately through reliance on sufficient relevant material. This failure cleared the way for the applicant\u2019s extradition.<\/p>\n (c) Existence of a real risk of ill-treatment or danger to life in their countries of origin<\/p>\n 20. Given the failure of the domestic authorities to adequately assess the applicant\u2019s claim, the Court finds itself compelled to examine independently whether or not the applicant would be exposed to such a risk in the event of his extradition.<\/p>\n 21. The Court reiterates that previously it had concluded that individuals whose criminal prosecution is pursued by the Turkmen authorities face a real risk of ill-treatment in detention in Turkmenistan (see Allanazarova, cited above, \u00a7\u00a076, and Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876\/08, \u00a7\u00a074, 17 June 2010).22. The Court notes that neither the independent reports (see paragraph 9 above) nor the parties\u2019 submissions in the present case provide at this moment a sufficient basis for a conclusion that individuals in the applicant\u2019s situation would no longer run such a risk.<\/p>\n (d) Conclusion<\/p>\n 23. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicant were to be extradited to Turkmenistan.<\/p>\n II. Interim measure under rule 39 of the rules of court<\/p>\n 24. On 16 May 2017 the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Russia to Turkmenistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n 25. In this connection the Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article\u00a028 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the present judgment is final.<\/p>\n 26. Accordingly, the Court considers that the measure indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court comes to an end.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 27. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 28. The applicant claimed non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, leaving the award at the discretion of the Court, and 400,000 Russian roubles (approximately 4,430 euros (EUR)) in respect of costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 29. The Government considered in respect of the claim for non\u2011pecuniary damage that the award should follow the Court\u2019s well\u2011established case-law and in respect of the claim for costs and expenses that it was excessive and unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n 30. The Court, having regard to the conditional nature of the violation of the applicant\u2019s rights in the present case, considers that the finding of a violation in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present case (see F.G. v.\u00a0Sweden, cited above, \u00a7 160). As regards the claim for costs and expenses the Court takes note of the principle that the award should be made insofar as the costs incurred are necessary and reasonable and awards EUR 2,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be payable directly to the applicant\u2019s representative Ms O. Tseytlina.<\/p>\n 31. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaint admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in case of the applicant\u2019s removal to Turkmenistan;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that the finding that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in case of the applicant\u2019s return to Turkmenistan constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non\u2011pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that in respect of costs and expenses the respondent State is to pay directly to the applicant\u2019s representative, within three months, EUR\u00a02,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 July 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Olga Chernishova \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Georges Ravarani The present case concerns the applicant\u2019s pending removal to Turkmenistan where he allegedly faces a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. THIRD SECTION CASE OF A.B. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 34804\/17) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 July…<\/p>\n
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"