Communicated on 3 April 2019<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 5137\/19
\nN.R.
\nagainst Turkey
\nlodged on 24 January 2019<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant is a Tajik national, who allegedly fled his country for fear of persecution due to his religious convictions, in particular, his affiliation with the Tablighi Jamaat, which is considered to be an illegal organisation in Tajikistan. The application concerns the applicant\u2019s threatened deportation to Tajikistan, and the alleged absence of an effective remedy to challenge the deportation decision. The applicant relies on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n On 25 January 2019 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 15 February 2019. The Court further decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 11 February 2019 the Court decided to prolong, until further notice, the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n QUESTION tO THE GOVERNMENT<\/p>\n Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation from Turkey? If so, is the country of destination Tajikistan?<\/p>\n QUESTIONS tO BOTH PARTIES<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in connection with his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? In particular, were proceedings before administrative courts and\/or the Constitutional Court capable of providing the applicant with an effective remedy, for the purposes of Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a01 and within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Article 3, having particular regard to the fact that neither of those remedies had an automatic suspensive effect by reason of the changes brought about by sections 35 and 36 of the Decree Law no. 676 of 29\u00a0October 2016 (see A.M. v. the Netherlands, no.\u00a029094\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 64-71, 5\u00a0July 2016)?<\/p>\n The parties are requested to provide information about the outcome of any proceedings pending before the administrative courts and the Constitutional Court in respect of the applicant\u2019s threatened expulsion to Tajikistan.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were to be deported to Tajikistan? Did the national authorities and courts conduct an adequate examination of the applicant\u2019s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of ill\u2011treatment if removed to Tajikistan (see, mutatis mutandis, Auad v.\u00a0Bulgaria, no.\u00a046390\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 95-108, 11\u00a0October 2011; F.G. v.\u00a0Sweden [GC], no.\u00a043611\/11, \u00a7 127, ECHR 2016; and Babajanov v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a049867\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 41-49, 10 May 2016)?<\/p>\n The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to their replies, including documents pertaining to the asylum request that the applicant claims to have lodged with the Turkish authorities.<\/p>\n