I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in S.S. v. RUSSIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-03-08
• Communication date: 2016-06-13
• Application number(s): 2236/16
• Country:   RUS
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-f, 13, P7-1
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.620156
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant is an Uzbek national who was born in 1982.
He is represented before the Court by Ms E.G.
Davidyan and Ms D.V.
Trenina, lawyers practising in Moscow.
In 2013 criminal proceedings were brought against him in Uzbekistan on suspicion of being a member of a proscribed religious extremist organisation, and an Uzbek court ordered his arrest.
At some point the applicant arrived in Russia.
In 2013 he was convicted by a Russian court of counterfeiting currency and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
In 2014 the Uzbek authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant’s extradition.
There is no information on the current status of the extradition proceedings.
In October the Deputy Minister of Justice of Russia and in November 2015 the Federal Security Service of Russia issued decisions declaring the applicant’s presence on Russian territory undesirable (“the exclusion orders”).
On 12 January 2016 the local migration authority decided to deport the applicant from Russia on the basis of the exclusion orders.
On 15 January 2016 the applicant’s term of imprisonment expired and he was released from the colony.
On the same date he was arrested by the local migration service officers, and a domestic court ordered that the applicant be placed into a special-purpose facility pending his deportation.
He is currently held in the special-purpose facility in the Lipetsk Region.
On 23 December 2015 and on 14 January 2016 the defense challenged the exclusion orders and the deportation order, referring, in particular, to the risk of ill-treatment in case of the applicant’s removal to Uzbekistan.
On the same dates the defense requested, relying on Articles 85 to 87 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, that the court apply an interim measure and suspend both enforcement of the decisions on the undesirable stay and the applicant’s deportation.
It appears that no reply to the request for an interim measure was forthcoming.
On 9 March 2016 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the applicant’s administrative action.
It appears that the appeal proceedings are pending.
In the meantime, the applicant applied for temporary asylum.
It appears that his application has not been examined on the merits.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that because of the criminal proceedings pending against him in Uzbekistan, his deportation there would expose him to a real risk of torture and ill‐treatment.
He further complains under Article 13 that he does not have an effective remedy against the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
In particular, he argues that the Russian authorities deliberately chose to apply the deportation procedure in respect of him in order to circumvent the procedural guarantees available in the extradition procedure and, furthermore, failed to notify the defence of the progress of the extradition proceedings.
He further submits, under the same provision, that the deportation procedure does not require a court order and, if a deportation order is issued, it is to be enforced immediately.
Furthermore, domestic law does not provide for a specific appeal procedure with automatic suspensive effect.
He asserts, in particular, that an appeal under Chapter 22 of the CAP – the only available legal avenue for challenging the deportation order – does not have automatic suspensive effect, and the determination of a separate application for a provisional measure of protection remains at the discretion of a judge.
Furthermore, he complains under Article 13 that the defence’s request under Articles 85 to 87 of the CAP to have the applicant’s deportation suspended remains unanswered, in breach of the one-day deadline set out in domestic law.
Finally, the applicant argues under the same Convention provision that his application for temporary asylum has not been effective.