THIRD SECTION<\/p>\n
CASE OF U.A. v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 12018\/16)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n22 January 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of U.A. v. Russia,<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand StephenPhillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2018,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in application(no.\u00a012018\/16)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 an Uzbek national, Mr U.A. (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 30\u00a0March 2016.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Ms D.\u00a0Trenina and Ms\u00a0E.\u00a0Davidyan (\u201cthe representatives\u201d), lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Matyushkin,the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by his successor in that office Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantraised complaints under Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 March 2016the applicant\u2019s request for interim measures preventing his removal from Russia to Uzbekistan was granted by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The application was further granted priority (Rule 47) and confidentiality (Rule 33) and the applicantwas granted anonymity (Rule 47 \u00a7 4).<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 February 2017 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant is a national of Uzbekistan born on 5 November 1972. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0On 21July 2015the applicant was charged in Uzbekistan with religious and politically motivated crimes.On 22 July 2015 his pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia, and international search warrant was issued by the authorities.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently the Russian authorities decided to deport the applicant (see the appended table), despite his consistent claims that in the event of removal he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in his country of origin.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0A summary of the domestic law and practice concerning extraditions was provided in the case of Mukhitdinov v. Russia (no. 20999\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 29-31, 21\u00a0May 2015, with further references).<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0REPORTS ON UZBEKISTAN BY INTERNATIONAL NON\u2011GOVERNMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant reports by the UN agencies and international NGOs on the situation in Uzbekistan up until 2015 were cited in the case of Kholmurodov v. Russia (no. 58923\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 46-50, 1 March 2016).<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, the most recent Amnesty International\u2019s Report 2017\/18 \u201cThe State of the World\u2019s Human Rights\u201d reveals some steps taken for improving the human rights protection in Uzbekistan:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn November, the President issued a decree explicitly prohibiting the use of torture to obtain confessions and their admission as evidence in court proceedings.\u201d<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0However, the relevant chapter of the same report on Counter-Terror and Security issues reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe authorities continued to secure forcible returns, including through extradition proceedings, of Uzbekistani nationals they identified as threats to the \u201cconstitutional order\u201d or national security. NSS officers continued to abduct wanted individuals (so\u2011called renditions) from abroad. Those abducted or otherwise forcibly returned were placed in incommunicado detention, often in undisclosed locations, and tortured or otherwise ill-treated to force them to confess or incriminate others. In many cases, security forces pressured relatives not to seek support from human rights organizations, and not to file complaints about alleged human rights violations.\u201d<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0Similar conclusions were drawn in Human Rights Watch World Report 2016and Amnesty International\u2019s Submissions to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the group of cases Garabayev v.\u00a0Russian Federation (No.38411\/02).<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations the Government noted that the representatives had failed to provide properly executed forms of authority at the moment of lodging the applicationwith the Court and thatraised doubts as to the applicant\u2019s awareness of the institution of proceedings on his behalf.<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The Government highlighted that the representatives failed to provide forms of authority when they requested an interim measure in their first letter to the Court. The representatives commented in their observations on behalf of the applicant that the arguments of the Government were unsubstantiated. The first letter concerned the applicant\u2019s imminent deportation on the same day, and in this letter the representatives specifically mentioned that under the circumstances it was impossible to provide forms of authority at that moment.<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Rule 45 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court an applicant\u2019s representative should supply a duly completed and signed authority form at the moment of initiating proceedings at the Court. Further, in a number of cases in which the applicant had not been in contact with the Court directly, the Court has held that it is essential for representatives to demonstrate that they have received specific and explicit instructions from the alleged victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention on whose behalf they purport to act (see V.M. and Others v.\u00a0Belgium (striking out)[GC], no.\u00a060125\/11, \u00a7 35, 17 November 2016;Kaur v.\u00a0the Netherlands (dec.), no.\u00a035864\/11, \u00a7 14, 15 May 2012; K.M. and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no.\u00a046086\/07, 29\u00a0April 2010; and\u00c7etin v. Turkey (dec.),no.\u00a010449\/08, 13\u00a0September 2011).<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the representativesfailed to submit properly completed and signed forms of authority as required by the Rule\u00a045\u00a0\u00a7 3 of the Rules of Courtin the application in respect of both representatives. However, the Court further notes that the representatives duly informed the Court of the instantaneous difficulties with submitting the forms in their first letter to the Court.<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that a close cooperation between the representatives and the applicanthas been demonstrated in the course of the proceedings. This facthas been manifested in the manner the representatives provided pertinent information, updates and documents on behalf of the applicant. The Court further observes that the Government have not disputed the subsequent contact of the representatives with the applicant either. The Court considers that the shortcomings linked with submission of proper forms of authority at the moment of lodging of the applicationcan be accounted for by the urgency required for requesting interim measures as stipulated in Rule\u00a047 \u00a7 5.1 (a) and (b) of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the above,the Court dismisses the Russian Government\u2019s preliminary objection.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to consider his claims that he could be at risk of ill-treatment in the event of his removal to Uzbekistan and that his removalwould expose him to that risk. Article\u00a03 of the Convention reads:<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested those arguments. In particular they referred to the steps that Uzbek authorities took for improving the situation in respect of human rights in the country and to the assurances provided to the Russian authorities that the applicant would not be subject to torture or ill\u2011treatment.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies by pursuing refugee status or temporary asylum proceedings. In this respect the Court notes that the applicant raised his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention before the domestic courts that reviewed the lawfulness of his expulsion, but that these arguments were dismissed by the domestic courts (see the appended table). The Court is satisfied that the applicant had exhausted the domestic remedies by raising the relevant Article 3 claims in expulsion proceedings.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0 The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention.<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The application must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0General principles<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant general principles concerning the application of Article\u00a03 have been summarised recently by the Court in the judgment in the case of F.G.\u00a0v. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 111-27, ECHR 2016) and in the context of removals from Russia to Uzbekistan in Mamazhonov v.\u00a0Russia (no.\u00a017239\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 127-35, 23 October 2014).<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Application of those principles to the present case<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0Existence of substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of ill-treatment<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has previously established that the individuals whose extradition was sought by Uzbek authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Uzbekistan (see Mamazhonov, cited above, \u00a7141).<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present application, it is not disputed that in the course of the deportation proceedings the applicant consistently and specifically argued that he had been prosecuted for religious extremism and faced a risk of ill\u2011treatment. The extradition request submitted by the Uzbek authorities was clear as to its basis, namely that the applicant was accused of religiously and politically motivated crimes. The Uzbek authorities thus directly identified the applicant with the groups whose members have previously been found to be at real risk of being subjected to proscribed treatment.<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0In such circumstances, the Court considers that the Russian authorities had at their disposal a sufficiently substantiated complaints pointing to a real risk of ill-treatment.<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant presented the Russian authorities with substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan.<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0Duty to assess claims of a real risk of ill-treatment through reliance on sufficient relevant material<\/p>\n
30.\u00a0\u00a0Having concluded that the applicant had advanced at national level valid claims 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 these claims adequately through reliance on sufficient relevant material.<\/p>\n
31.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case, the Court considers that in the deportation proceedings the domestic authorities did not carry out a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant\u2019s claims that he faced a risk of ill\u2011treatment in his home country. The Court reaches this conclusion having considered the national courts\u2019 simplistic rejections of the applicant\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n
32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court also notes that the Russian legal system \u2013 in theory, at least \u2013 offers several avenues whereby the applicant\u2019s removal to Uzbekistan could be prevented, given the risk of ill-treatment he faces there. However, the facts of the present application demonstrate that the applicant\u2019s claims were not adequately considered in any relevant proceedings, despite being consistently raised.<\/p>\n
33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court concludes that, although the applicant had sufficiently substantiated the claims that he would risk ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the Russian authorities failed to assess these claims adequately through reliance on sufficient relevant material. This failure opened the way for the applicant\u2019s removal to Uzbekistan.<\/p>\n
(c)\u00a0\u00a0Existence of a real risk of ill-treatment or danger to life<\/p>\n
34.\u00a0\u00a0Given the failure of the domestic authorities to adequately assess the alleged real risk of ill-treatment through reliance on sufficient relevant material, 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 removal to Uzbekistan.<\/p>\n
35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that nothing in the parties\u2019 submissions, nor available relevant material from independent international sources such as recent Human Rights Watch World Report 2016 andAmnesty International\u2019s Submissions to the Council of Europe Committee Of Ministers: Garabayev v.\u00a0Russian Federation (No.38411\/02) Group of Cases, nor previously adopted judgments and decisions (see recently Kholmurodov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a058923\/14, 1 March 2016, andMukhitdinov v. Russia, no.\u00a020999\/14, 19\u00a0October 2015), indicate that there has been any improvement in either the criminal justice system of Uzbekistan in general or in the specific treatment of those prosecuted for religiously and politically motivated crimes.<\/p>\n
36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has given due consideration to the available material disclosing a real risk of ill-treatment to individuals accused, like the applicant, of religiously and politically motivated crimes, and concludes that by authorising the applicant\u2019s deportation the Russian authorities exposed his to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
(d)\u00a0\u00a0Conclusion<\/p>\n
37.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 removed to Uzbekistan.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
38.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant further complained under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(f) of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his detention pending deportation and of lack of foreseeability regarding its length. The relevant provisions of the Convention read as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone 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…<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
(f)\u00a0\u00a0the lawful arrest or detention of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.\u201d<\/p>\n
39.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument and insisted that the applicant\u2019s detention was in full compliance with the national law.<\/p>\n
40.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the exception in sub-paragraph (f) of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 of the Convention requires only that \u201caction is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition\u201d without any further justification (see, among others,Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, \u00a7\u00a0112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) 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.\u00a03455\/05, \u00a7\u00a0164, ECHR 2009).<\/p>\n
41.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s detention lasted at least a year. The applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre for aliens on 2\u00a0March 2016 and his detention was extended several times pending extradition. The applicant was released only on 13 March 2017.Nothing in the available materials or the parties\u2019 submissions indicates that the authorities pursued the proceedings with requisite diligence, what kind of progress was achieved in the proceedings or what steps were taken by the authorities at reasonable intervals to justify continuing detention.<\/p>\n
42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court concludes that it had not been demonstrated that the length of the applicant\u2019s detention pending deportation was compliant with what was reasonably required for the purpose pursued. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
IV.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION RIGHTS<\/p>\n
43.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of effective domestic remedies in Russia in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant alsocomplained of a violation of his right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
44.\u00a0\u00a0However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.\u00a047848\/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR 2014 with further references).<\/p>\n
V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE UNDER RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT<\/p>\n
45.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 March 2016 the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited, expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n
46.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection the Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article\u00a028 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the present judgment is final.<\/p>\n
47.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court considers that the measures indicated to the Government under Rule\u00a039 of the Rules of Court come to an end.<\/p>\n
VI.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
48.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 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
A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/p>\n
49.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
50.\u00a0\u00a0The Government noted that finding a violation in the present application would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non\u2011pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.<\/p>\n
51.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the nature of the established violations of Article\u00a03 of the Convention and the specific facts of the present case, the Court considers that finding that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicant were to be removed to Uzbekistan constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage suffered (see, to similar effect, J.K.and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166\/12, \u00a7\u00a0127, ECHR 2016).<\/p>\n
52.\u00a0\u00a0At the same time having regard to its conclusions under Article5 of the Convention (see paragraph42above) and acting on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 5,000in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/p>\n
53.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also claimed EUR 5,200 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.<\/p>\n
54.\u00a0\u00a0The Government noted that no supporting documents were provided for the amount claimed for the costs and expenses and suggested the requested amount to be reduced.<\/p>\n
55.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR\u00a02,500 covering costs under all heads.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/p>\n
56.\u00a0\u00a0The 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,<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to dismiss the Government\u2019s preliminary objection;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the applicant\u2019s complaints under Articles 3 and 5of the Convention admissible;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicant were to be removed to Uzbekistan;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 of the Convention;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicantEUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500(two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses within three months, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement plus any tax that may be chargeable;<\/p>\n
(b) that the above award in respect of costs and expenses should be payable jointly and directly to his representatives Ms D. Trenina and Ms\u00a0E. Davidyan;<\/p>\n
(c)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/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\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/p>\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\n| Application no,<\/strong><\/p>\n | Application title,<\/strong><\/p>\n Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n (where relevant)<\/strong><\/td>\n (type, progress, outcome)<\/strong><\/td>\n U.A. v. Russia<\/strong><\/p>\n 30\/03\/2016<\/td>\n 23\/12\/2015 \u2013 arrested and subsequently detained<\/p>\n 21\/01\/2016 \u2013 released due to the absence of the extradition request<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Detention pending deportation<\/strong><\/p>\n 09\/03\/2016 \u2013 arrested and detained in the Centre for temporary detention of aliens<\/p>\n 13\/03\/2017 \u2013 applicant released<\/td>\n 21 to 22\/07\/2015 \u2013 criminal charges against the applicant and an international search warrant issued by the Uzbek authorities<\/p>\n 22\/01\/2016 \u2013 extradition request by the Uzbek authorities<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Deportation proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 02\/03\/2016 \u2013 deportation ordered by the migration authorities of the Sverdlovsk region<\/p>\n 14\/09\/2016- the Sverdlovsk Regional Court by the final judgment upheld the deportation order<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 14\/09\/2016 \u2013 refugee status refused by the final decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Temporary asylum proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 26\/05\/2016 \u2013 temporary asylum refused by the migration authorities<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 29\/01\/2016 – residence permit annulled<\/p>\n 02\/03\/2016\u2013 interim measure granted by the Court preventing the applicant\u2019s removal to Uzbekistan<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n |