THIRD SECTION<\/p>\n
CASE OF B.U. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 59609\/17and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/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 B.U. and Others 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 Stephen Phillips, 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 three applications (nos.\u00a059609\/17, 74677\/17 and 76379\/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 two Tajik nationals and one Uzbek national (\u201cthe applicants\u201d) on various dates, as indicated in the appendix.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by various lawyers, as also indicated in the appendix. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates requests lodged by the applicants for interim measures preventing their removal to their respective countries of origin were granted by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The applications were also granted priority (Rule 41) and confidentiality (Rule\u00a033) and the applicants were granted anonymity (Rule\u00a047\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04).<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention in connection with the pending removal to their countries of origin.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 January 2018 notice of the above complaints was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 July 2018 the applicant\u2019s representative in the case I.N\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia, no. 76379\/17 informed the Court that the applicant did not wish to maintain his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, while maintaining his complaint under Article 5 of the Convention. He further requested that the previously indicated interim measure be discontinued. On 29 October 2018 the Court decided to discontinue the indication of the interim measure in the applicant\u2019s case.<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are nationals of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Their initials, dates of birth, the dates on which their applications were lodged, the application numbers, as well as the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the appendix.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates the applicants were charged in their countries of origin with religious and politically motivated crimes, their pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia, and international search warrants were issued by the authorities.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, the Russian authorities took final decisions to remove (that is to say extradite or expel) the applicants, despite consistent claims that in the event of removal the applicants would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic and international law is summarised in the Court\u2019s judgments on removal from Russia to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (see\u00a0Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no.\u00a071386\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 70\u2011101, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and\u00a0Akram Karimov\u00a0v. Russia, no.\u00a062892\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 69-105, 28 May 2014).<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0REPORTS ON TAJIKISTAN AND UZBEKISTAN<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant reports by UN agencies and international NGOs on the situation in Tajikistan were cited in the case of K.I. v. Russia (no. 58182\/14, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a02-28, 7 November 2017) and on the situation in Uzbekistan in the cases of Kholmurodov v. Russia (no.\u00a058923\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 46-50, 1 March 2016), and T.M. and Others v. Russia ([Committee], no.\u00a031189\/15, \u00a7 28, 7 November 2017).<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with Rule 42 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given that they concern similar facts and raise identical legal issues under the Convention.<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsin the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17 and A.S.\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia, no. 74677\/17 complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to consider their claims that they could be at risk of ill-treatment in the event of their removal to their respective countries of origin and that their removal would expose them to that risk if it were to take place. 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
14.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0General principles<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0The 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. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 111-27, ECHR 2016).<\/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
17.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by either Uzbek or Tajik 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 their respective countries of origin (see Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239\/13, \u00a7 141, 23 October 2014, and K.I.\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia, cited above, \u00a7 36).<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present cases, it is apparent that in the course of the extradition and expulsion proceedings the applicants consistently and specifically argued that they were being prosecuted for religious extremism and faced a risk of ill\u2011treatment. The material relating to the charges made by the Tajik and Uzbek authorities was clear as to its basis, namely that the applicants were accused of religiously and politically motivated crimes. The Tajik and Uzbek authorities thus directly identified the applicants with groups whose members have previously been found to be at real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by the Convention.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0In such circumstances, the Court considers that the Russian authorities had at their disposal sufficiently substantiated complaints pointing to a real risk of ill-treatment.<\/p>\n
20. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants presented the Russian authorities with substantial grounds for believing that they faced a real risk of ill-treatment in their countries of origin.<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0Duty to assess claims of a real risk of ill-treatment through reliance on sufficient relevant material<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0Having concluded that the applicants had advanced at national level valid claims based on substantial grounds for believing that they 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 those claims adequately through reliance on sufficient relevant material.<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present cases, the Court considers that in the extradition and expulsion proceedings the domestic authorities did not carry out a rigorous scrutiny of the applicants\u2019 claims that they faced a risk of ill\u2011treatment in their home country. The Court reaches this conclusion having considered the national courts\u2019 simplistic rejections of the applicants\u2019 claims. Moreover, the domestic courts\u2019 reliance on the assurances of the Tajik and Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v.\u00a0Russia, no. 14743\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v.\u00a0Russia, no. 17724\/14, \u00a7 46, 1 December 2015).<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court also notes that the Russian legal system, in principle, offers several avenues whereby the removal of applicants to their countries of origin could be prevented, given the risk of ill-treatment they face there. However, the facts of the present cases demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 claims were not adequately considered in any relevant proceedings, despite being consistently raised (see appendix for details of the proceedings).<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court concludes that, although the applicants had sufficiently substantiated their claims that they would risk ill-treatment in their countries of origin, the Russian authorities failed to assess their claims adequately through reliance on sufficient relevant material. This failure opened the way for the applicants\u2019 removal.<\/p>\n
(c)\u00a0\u00a0Existence of a real risk of ill-treatment or danger to life<\/p>\n
25.\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 applicants would be exposed to such a risk in the event of their removal to their countries of origin.<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that nothing in the parties\u2019 submissions, norany previously examined relevant material from independent international sources (see paragraph 11 above) provides a basis for concluding that the criminal justice system of Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, or the specific treatment of those prosecuted for religiously and politically motivated crimes, has improved.<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0Having given due consideration to the available material, the Court concludes that authorising the applicants\u2019 removal to their countries of origin would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
(d)\u00a0\u00a0Conclusion<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Conventionin the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17 and A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17 if the applicants were to be removed to their respective countries of origin.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants in the cases B.U. v. Russia (no. 59609\/17) and I.N.\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia no. 76379\/17) complained that their detention pending administrative expulsion had been unreasonably long and had been ordered without any indication of time-limitsor prospects of release. The applicant in the case A.S. v. Russia(no. 74677\/17) complained that he had been kept in detention between 12 noon on 29 August 2017 and 9 a.m. on 30 August 2017 without the relevant arrest records being drawn up.They relied on Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which 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
30.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations of 11 June 2018 in the cases B.U. v. Russia(no.\u00a059609\/17) and I.N. v. Russia(no. 76379\/17),the Government limited their submissions to general claims about the interrelation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(f) and 4 standards, as well as the general principles pertaining to detentions pending removal. They presented no arguments focusing directly on the applicants\u2019 situations or the particularities of the relevant facts or proceedings.<\/p>\n
31.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations of 11 June 2018 in the case A.S. v. Russia(no.\u00a074677\/17) the Governmentreserved their right to delay the submission of their position and documents until \u201cthe further stages of the proceedings\u201d, but finally never submitted any subsequent observations on the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that these complaint are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
33.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the applicants\u2019 complaints in the cases B.U. v. Russia, (no. 59609\/17) and I.N. v. Russia(no. 76379\/17), the 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.\u00a0the 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.\u00a0the United Kingdom [GC], no.\u00a03455\/05, \u00a7\u00a0164, ECHR 2009). In asking whether \u201caction is being taken with a view to deportation\u201d, this Court has found that removal must be a realistic prospect (see A. and Others, cited above, \u00a7 167, and Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no.\u00a058149\/08, \u00a7 144, 12\u00a0February 2013). While an interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court might at times be the only actual barrier to an applicant\u2019s expulsion, its indication does not necessarily create a presumption that the expulsion is not possible or that the subsequent detention is arbitrary. A detention period subject to review at regular intervals, as long as expulsion remains a realistic possibility, might be reasonable given the authorities\u2019 decisions to maintain that detention awaiting the outcome of this Court\u2019s judgment (see Ahmed v.\u00a0the United Kingdom, no. 59727\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 45-59, 2\u00a0March 2017).<\/p>\n
34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that prior to their detention pending expulsion the applicants had been detained pending extradition for approximately one year. On the day of their release from detention pending extradition they were immediately re-arrested for violation of migration rules. They were found guilty by the district courts (see the appendix), which ordered their administrative removal and placed them in detention pending expulsion without indicating any time-limits. Those judgments were subsequently upheld in full by the Moscow City Court after the Court had indicated the interim measures.<\/p>\n
35.\u00a0\u00a0The domestic judicial decisions ordering the applicants\u2019 detention pending expulsion contained no analysis of the particularities of the cases as regards the need for detention, and no estimation of how realistic the applicants\u2019 removal was in the light of the Rule 39 measure. Nor did those decisions set any time-limits for review of the continued validity of the applicants\u2019 detention. In the absence of scrutiny by the domestic courts of those decisive elements, the Court must conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the length of the applicants\u2019 detention pending expulsion was compliant with what was reasonably required for the purpose pursued.<\/p>\n
36.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention in the cases B.U. v. Russia(no. 59609\/17) and I.N. v.\u00a0Russia(no.\u00a076379\/17).<\/p>\n
37.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the complaint in the case A.S. v. Russia(no. 74677\/17) about the absence of the relevant arrest records for the detention between 12\u00a0noon on 29 August 2017 and 9 a.m. on 30 August 2017, the Court notes that the Government in their observations providedno arguments or documents relevant to the issue, nor advanced an inadmissibility plea.It must be further observed that according to the prosecutor\u2019s letter of 1 June 2018,the applicant was indeed arrested and detained without the police drawing up the relevant arrest records.<\/p>\n
38.\u00a0\u00a0In the absence of any arguments or material capable of dispelling the applicant\u2019s allegations and having regard to its case-law on the matter, the Court finds that the applicant\u2019s detention between 12\u00a0noon on 29 August 2017 and 9 a.m. on 30 August 2017 without the relevant arrest records was incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
39.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in the case A.S. v. Russia.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 4 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
40.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsin the cases B.U. v. Russia(no. 59609\/17) and I.N.\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia(no.\u00a076379\/17)further complained that the length of the appeal proceedings in their cases against the detention orders of 12 January 2017before the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow and of 1 June 2017before the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, respectively, had not complied with the \u201cspeediness\u201d requirement of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. They also complained that they had not had at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could have challenged their continued detention. The relevant provisions of the Convention read as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cEveryone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.\u201d<\/p>\n
41.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that those matters were the subject of the well-established case-law of the Court and that the documents submitted by the applicants were sufficient for a decision on the matter. They did not provide any further comments.<\/p>\n
42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
43.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in the case B.U. v. Russia the detention order of 12 January 2017 issued by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Courton 14 June 2017, that is five months later. It further observes that in the case I.N. v. Russia the detention order of 1 June 2017 issued by the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 27 June 2017, that is twenty-six days later.<\/p>\n
44.\u00a0\u00a0In the absence of any arguments capable of justifying thetime taken to review the appeals and given that the applicants\u2019 liberty was at stake in the above-mentioned proceedings, the Court finds that the time taken to review the applicants\u2019 appeals against the detention orders was unreasonable in the light of the \u201cspeediness\u201d requirement under the Convention.<\/p>\n
45.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention in this regard.<\/p>\n
46.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the complaints concerning the absence of an effective procedure by which the applicants could have challenged their continued detention, the Court notes that these complaints were couched in general and abstract terms. At the same time, the Government in their observations did not provide any specific comments on the matter and considered it to be the subject of the Court\u2019s well-established case-law.<\/p>\n
47.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, having regard to the judgment in the case Azimov v.\u00a0Russia(no. 67474\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 150-55 and \u00a7\u00a7 160-74, 18\u00a0April 2013), the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention in this regard.<\/p>\n
IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM MEASURES UNDER RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT<\/p>\n
48.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be removed from Russia to their respective countries of origin for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n
49.\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
50.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court considers that the measures indicated to the Government under Rule\u00a039 of the Rules of Court in the cases B.U. v.\u00a0Russia, no. 59609\/17 and A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17 come to an end.<\/p>\n
V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
51.\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
52.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
53.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that in the event of the Court finding a violation, any just satisfaction awarded to the applicants should be in compliance with the Court\u2019s well-established case-law.<\/p>\n
54.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the nature of the established violations of Article\u00a03 of the Convention in the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17 and A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17 and the specific facts of the present case, the Court considers that its finding that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicants were to be removed to their respective countries of origin constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage suffered (see, to similar effect, J.K. and Others v.\u00a0Sweden [GC], no.\u00a059166\/12, \u00a7\u00a0127, ECHR 2016).<\/p>\n
55.\u00a0\u00a0At the same time, having regard to its conclusions under Article 5 of the Convention (see paragraphs 36, 39,45 and 47 above) and acting on an equitable basis, the Court awards each applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/p>\n
56.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also claimed between EUR 2,520 and 2,880 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.<\/p>\n
57.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not provide specific comments in this regard.<\/p>\n
58.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable that the sums indicated in the appended table be awarded and that these sums should be payable directly to the applicants\u2019 representatives.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/p>\n
59.\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 Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe complaints under Articles 3of the Conventionin the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17 and A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17 and under Article 5 of the Convention in the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17, A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17, and I.N. v. Russia, no. 76379\/17 admissible;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17 and A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17 if the applicants were to be removed to their respective countries of origin;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Conventionin the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17, A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17, and I.N. v. Russia, no. 76379\/17;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Conventionin the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17 and I.N. v. Russia, no.\u00a076379\/17;<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the finding that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Conventionin the cases B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609\/17 and A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677\/17 in the event of the applicants\u2019 removal to their respective countries of origin constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in this regard;<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n
(b) that the sums awarded in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and this Court are to be payable directly to the applicants\u2019 representatives;<\/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
8.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 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| Name,<\/strong><\/p>\n | date of birth,<\/strong><\/p>\n nationality;<\/strong><\/p>\n application no.,<\/strong><\/p>\n lodged on;<\/strong><\/p>\n represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n 6 June 1986<\/p>\n Tajikistan<\/p>\n <\/p>\n App. no. 59609\/17<\/p>\n 17 August 2017<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Daria TRENINA<\/p>\n Eleonora DAVIDYAN<\/p>\n Kirill ZHARINOV<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n 12 July 2016 \u2013 arrested and subsequently detained<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 12 January 2017 \u2013 prolongation of detention by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n 14 January 2017 \u2013 the applicant appealed<\/p>\n 17 January 2017 \u2013 appeal received by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n 2 June 2017 \u2013appeal resubmitted due to absence of a decision on the previous one<\/p>\n 14 June 2017 \u2013 order upheld by the Moscow City Court<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11 July April 2017 \u2013 applicant released due to quashing of the extradition order by the Moscow City Court<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Detention pending expulsion<\/em><\/p>\n 11 July 2017 \u2013 arrest and subsequent detention<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The applicant is still in detention<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n 1 March 2016 \u2013 international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities<\/p>\n 2 March 2016 \u2013 detention order issuedin absentia<\/em> by Tajik authorities<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 27 July 2016 \u2013 extradition request on charges of extremism<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5 June 2017 \u2013 extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General\u2019s Office<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11 July 2017 \u2013 extradition order quashed by the Moscow City Court<\/p>\n 14 September 2017 \u2013 judgment upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Expulsion proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 13 July 2017 \u2013 expulsion ordered by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n 22 August 2017 \u2013 expulsion order upheld by final judgment of the Moscow City Court<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 20 March 2018 \u2013 enforcement of the expulsion order suspended by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow in view of the interim measure indicated by the Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n 11 May 2017 \u2013 final refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n EUR 2,880 to Ms\u00a0Trenina, Ms\u00a0Davidyan and Mr\u00a0Zharinov jointly, in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 3 March 1992<\/p>\n Tajikistan<\/p>\n <\/p>\n App. no. 74677\/17<\/p>\n 23 October 2017<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Daria TRENINA<\/p>\n Eleonora DAVIDYAN<\/p>\n Kirill ZHARINOV<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n 27 August 2017 \u2013 arrested<\/p>\n 29 August 2017 \u2013 released due to failure of Tajik authorities to submit a detention order<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Detention pending expulsion<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 12 noon on 29 August 2017 \u2013 applicant arrested allegedly in absence of any relevant records<\/p>\n 9 p.m. on 30 August 2017 \u2013 applicant released after court hearing<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 4 May 2017 \u2013 international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Expulsion proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 30 August 2017 \u2013 expulsion ordered by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n 26 October 2017 \u2013 expulsion order upheld by final judgment of the Moscow City Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n 21 August 2017 \u2013 the applicant allegedly attempted to lodge an asylum application, but was threatened with arrest by migration authority officers and left<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 1 June 2018 \u2013 a prosecutor, having examined the case file, acknowledged that no relevant arrest records had been drawn up by the arresting police officers<\/p>\n 23 October 2017 \u2013 interim measure preventing the applicant\u2019s removal<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n EUR 2,520 to Ms\u00a0Trenina, Ms\u00a0Davidyan and Mr\u00a0Zharinov jointly, in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 25 June 1994<\/p>\n Uzbekistan<\/p>\n <\/p>\n App. no. 76379\/17<\/p>\n 2 November 2017<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Daria TRENINA<\/p>\n Eleonora DAVIDYAN<\/p>\n Kirill ZHARINOV<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n <\/p>\n 8 December 2016 \u2013 arrested and subsequently detained<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1 June 2017 \u2013 prolongation of detention ordered by the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n 27 June 2017 \u2013 order upheld by the Moscow City Court<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1 November 2017\u2013 applicant released due to refusal of extradition request<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Detention pending expulsion<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1 November 2017 \u2013 arrest and subsequent detention<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The applicant is still in detention<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 30 August 2016 \u2013 international search warrant issued by Uzbek authorities<\/p>\n 1 September 2016 \u2013 detention order in absentia<\/em>issued by Uzbek authorities<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 30 December 2016 \u2013 extradition request on charges of extremism<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 26 October 2017\u2013 extradition request refused by the Russian Prosecutor General\u2019s Office on account of applicant\u2019s actions not being recognised as a crime under Russian law<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Expulsion proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2 November 2017 \u2013 expulsion ordered by the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 30 November 2017 \u2013 expulsion order upheld by final judgment of the Moscow City Court<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10 November 2017 \u2013 enforcement of the expulsion order suspended by the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow in view of the interim measure indicated by the Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n 19 April 2017 \u2013 applicant applied for asylum<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 12 May 2017 \u2013 interview with migration authority officers, who allegedly misled the applicant into withdrawing his asylum application and applying for temporary asylum; the applicant\u2019s representative was absent<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 9 June 2017 \u2013 consideration of the asylum application terminated by the migration authorities due to withdrawal of the request<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Temporary asylum proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 7 June 2017 \u2013 refusal oftemporary asylum by the migration authorities<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 16 July 2018 \u2013 the applicant decided to withdraw his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 29 October 2018 \u2013 interim measure preventing the applicant\u2019s removal discontinued<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n EUR 2,520 to Ms\u00a0Trenina, Ms\u00a0Davidyan and Mr\u00a0Zharinov jointly, in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n |