I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in A.Y. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF A.Y. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 29958/20 and 2 others - see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 January 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.Y. and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jolien Schukking, President, Peeter Roosma, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning ordered expulsion of two applicants and forcible transfer of one of the applicants to Tajikistan, lack of effective domestic remedies, interference with an effective exercise by one of the applicants of right to an individual application and unlawful detention of two of the applicants pending expulsion, and the decision to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the decision to give priority (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) to the applications nos. 29958/20 and 41820/20 and the decision to indicate interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in those applications;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns (i) the ordered expulsion of two of the applicants (A.Y. and F.K.) and the alleged abduction and forced transfer of one of them (F.K.) to Tajikistan; (ii) the alleged lack of official investigation into the alleged abduction and transfer of F.K. ; (iii) the alleged absence of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints; (iv) the alleged breach of A.Y.’s right of individual application; and (v) the allegedly unlawful detention of applicants, F.K. and S.P., pending their expulsion. 2. The applicants’ personal details and other relevant information about their cases are set out in Appendix I. 3. In 2015 and 2017 the Tajikistani authorities charged A.Y. and F.K. with crime of political extremism. S.P. was charged with crime of religious extremism in 2016 in Uzbekistan. The pre-trial detention of the applicants was ordered in absentia, and international search warrants were issued by the national authorities of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The applicants were detained in Russia pending their extradition. The Russian authorities subsequently ordered administrative expulsion of A.K. and F.K. to Tajikistan and S.P. to Uzbekistan and they were detained pending their expulsion (see Appendix I). On different dates the Court granted requests for the application of interim measures in respect of A.Y. and F.K. A.Y. was transferred to Tajikistan on 21 July 2020 by a regular flight; the Government contended that the interim measure issued earlier had been lifted by that time. F.K. was, allegedly, transferred to Tajikistan in a military aircraft on 22 September 2020 from the Domodedovo airport (Moscow). The Russian Government disputed this allegation and suggested that the applicant had left Russia voluntarily for Tajikistan on that day (see Appendix I). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 5. Applicants A.Y. and F.K. complained that the Russian authorities had failed to duly consider their claims that their expulsion to Tajikistan, if carried out, would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment there (see Appendix I). The Government submitted that both applicants had not demonstrated that substantial grounds existed for believing that they would face the real risk of treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their expulsion. 6. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 7. In so far as A.Y.’s and F.K.’s complaint concerns the risk of ill‐treatment that they ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by 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 Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010). Furthermore, given the nature of the charges against the applicants, the manner in which the indictment was issued against them (see Appendix I “Removal proceedings”) and perfunctory judicial review of their allegations by the domestic courts (ibid), the Court finds no reason to depart from its earlier findings in similar cases and concludes that at the time of their ordered expulsion to Tajikistan a real risk had existed that A.Y. and F.K. would be subjected in Tajikistan to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 on account of A.Y.’s and F.K.’s ordered expulsion to Tajikistan. 8. F.K. also complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, about his alleged abduction and illegal transfer to Tajikistan (see Appendix I, “Detention” and “Other relevant information”). The Government denied any involvement in his departure for Tajikistan. 9. As in other similar cases, the Court should examine whether the authorities (i) complied with their obligation to protect the applicant against the risk of the treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention; (ii) conducted an effective investigation into the applicant’s disappearance, and (iii) should be held accountable for the applicant’s disappearance (see Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, § 59, 21 May 2015). 10. Having regard to its findings in paragraph 7 above and taking into account the circumstances of F.K.’s case which are very similar to other cases where the repetitive pattern of disappearances was established of applicants who were last seen in the custody of State authorities, the Court is satisfied that the Russian authorities were aware that F.K. could face a forcible transfer to the country where he could be subjected to torture or ill-treatment and that relevant measures of protection should have been taken by them (see Mukhitdinov, cited above, § 62, and, as a recent example, N.K. v. Russia [Committee], no. 45761/18, 29 March 2022). 11. Furthermore, where, as in the present case, the authorities of a State party are informed of illegal transfer of a person from Russia, they have an obligation under the Convention to conduct an effective investigation (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, § 190). The Court however notes from the material of the case file that no attempt was made to carry out thorough investigation into F.K.’s alleged abduction (see Appendix I, “Other relevant information”). 12. Lastly, in the view of the above and having regard to the facts as alleged by the applicant and his representatives and confirmed by their detailed written statements, and the Government’s failure to substantiate their version of facts about voluntary nature of F.K.’s return with results of the domestic investigation or other evidence (see Appendix I, “Other relevant information”, and see Khamidkariyev v. Russia, no. 42332/14, § 120, 26 January 2017), the Court is satisfied that the applicant has been subject of an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, §§ 177‐85, 197-204, 214-19, and compare with N.K. v. Russia, cited above, § 9). 13. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in breach of Article 3, the Russian authorities exposed F.K. to a real risk of ill-treatment in Tajikistan by ordering his removal, that they were implicated in his forcible return there and they failed to carry out an effective investigation into his abduction. 14. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of F.K. on account of his disappearance and forcible transfer to Tajikistan. 15. In so far as A.Y. alleged that his expulsion had been in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of Rules of the Court and that there had been a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of his right of application, the Court notes the following. The Government did not argue before the Court that there had been an exceptional objective impediment which prevented compliance with the interim measure applied by the Court on 21 July 2020 and did not demonstrate that it had taken all reasonable steps to remove the impediment (see Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, § 92, 10 March 2009). The Court has already pointed out recurring failures of the Russian Government to comply with an interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in cases of applicants whose extradition was sought on extremism or terrorism related crimes in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and who disappeared or were illegally transferred there (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, §§ 177-205, and Mukhitdinov, cited above, §§ 59-76 and 91-96, with further references). In the light of that case law and given the circumstances of A.Y.’s case (see Appendix I, “Other relevant proceedings”), the Court accordingly holds that the Russian Government had not complied with an indication of interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court and nothing had objectively impeded that compliance. They therefore failed to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (see O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, §§ 59-63, 21 May 2019). 16. S.P. and F.K. also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 1 which are covered by the well‐established case-law of the Court. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it (see Appendix I, “Detention”), the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 5 § 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see, among many others, R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019). 17. A.Y. and F.K. also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case (see paragraphs 7, 11 and 12 above) and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 18. In the cases of A.Y. and F.K., on dates specified in Appendix I, the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that they should not be removed from Russia to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. In accordance with Article 28 § 2 of the Convention, the present judgment is final. Accordingly, the Court considers that the measures indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of A.Y. and F.K. in the present case have come to an end. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. The applicants claimed the amounts indicated in Appendix II, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. 20. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed by all applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage were excessive and, in any case, no award should be made as no violation of the applicants’ right had taken place. In respect of claim for costs and expenses submitted by A.Y. and S.P., they contended that it should be rejected because no legal services agreements had been submitted in support of it. As for F.K.’s claim for costs and expenses, the Government submitted that the legal services agreement had been made between his lawyers and his wife and that F.K. had not shown that he had actually incurred those expenses. 21. The Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in Appendix II, in respect of non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid directly to the bank accounts of the applicants’ representatives, as indicated, for subsequent transfer to the applicants. 22. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court rejects A.Y.’s and S.P.’s claim for costs and expenses and awards F.K., under this head, the amount indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, to be paid directly to the bank accounts of his representatives, and dismisses the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and to F.K. in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and both awards to be payable directly to the representatives’ bank accounts, as indicated in Appendix II;
(b) that 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Jolien Schukking Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX I
No. Application no. Lodged on
Applicant’s initials or name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
Represented by
Detention
Removal proceedings
Temporary asylum / Refugee status proceedings
Other relevant information
29958/20
21/07/2020
A.Y. 1989
Tajikistan
Moscow
Daria TRENINA
Kirill ZHARINOV
Eleonora DAVIDYAN
Detention pending extradition
2 March 2015 arrested in Moscow;
8 June 2016 – released, owing to having received a temporary asylum status;
15 June 2018 arrested pursuant to an international search warrant;
19 June 2018 – released with reference to the decision of 8 June 2016. Detention pending administrative expulsion

19 June 2018 – arrested for breaching immigration regulations. 20 June 2018 – detention ordered by the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow;

In immigration detention between 20 June 2018 and 21 July 2020 (two years and one month)

21 July 2020 – expelled to Tajikistan. Extradition proceedings
12 and 15 January 2015, respectively, - charged with a crime of political extremism and arrested in absentia by the Tajikistani authorities. Administrative expulsion proceedings

20 June 2018 - the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of breaching migration regulations and ordered his detention pending expulsion. 16 July 2018 - the Moscow City Court upheld the order for expulsion of the applicant. Removal not carried out, owing to bailiff’s ban of 13 March 2018 on the applicant’s leaving the country owing to unpaid fines. The ban was subsequently extended. 17 February 2020 - the ban on leave was lifted by mistake. 24 March 2020 - the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow refused to terminate the expulsion proceedings and to release the applicant. 14 May 2020 – the Moscow City Court upheld that decision. No thorough assessment was made by the courts of risks that the applicant faced in Tajikistan in light of criminal charges pending against him there. Temporary asylum proceedings
26 February 2016 – refused temporary asylum by the Moscow Region Federal Migration Service (“FMS”). 3 June 2016 – granted temporary asylum by the Moscow Region FMS for six months. 31 January 2019 - the Moscow FMS refused his new request for temporary asylum. 21 March 2019 - the Russia FMS upheld the refusal of temporary asylum. 27 February 2020 - the FMS Moscow refused his new request for temporary asylum. 13 July 2020 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal to grant him temporary asylum. 14 October 2020 – the Moscow City Court upheld the dismissal. Refugee proceedings
5 December 2019 – allegedly not allowed by the Interior Ministry of Moscow (“MVD”) migration service to apply for refugee status; allowed to use only a temporary asylum procedure. 11 June 2020 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the Moscow MVD migration service’s refusal to be allowed to apply for refugee status; appeal filed. 20 April 2020 the Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the above judgment. The domestic courts limited their reasoning to general statements about the absence of any risks for the applicant. No assessment of arguments was made in the light of the Court’s case law concerning the treatment of persons accused of extremism-related crimes in Tajikistan and international reports on that matter. No real assessment of whether substantial grounds had been shown for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court

1st interim measure (in application no. 20033/19 brought by the same applicant):

15 April 2019 - the Court granted the applicant’s request under Rule 39 and indicated to the Russian Government not to remove the applicant to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 14 November 2019 – the Court discontinued the application of the interim measure (see application no. 20033/19 (Appendix) for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of Article 3 complaint. On 21 July 2020 the applicant called his lawyer informing him that he was being transferred to one of the Moscow airports for expulsion to Tajikistan. 2nd interim measure:
21 July 2020 - the Court granted the applicant’s request under Rule 39 in the present application and indicated to the Russian Government not to remove the applicant to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant stated that the Government had been informed of the application of the 2nd interim measure by the Court four hours before the applicant’s flight on 21 July 2021 to Tajikistan, which had been sufficient enough time to process it and to stop his expulsion (see O.O. v. Russia, 36321/16, 21 May 2019, § 62). Moreover, the applicant’s lawyers themselves informed all State bodies (border control and airport police) concerned about the pending interim measure. Finally, the applicant submitted that he had been removed at the time when the temporary asylum and refugee proceedings in respect of him had still been pending, which showed strong determination of the authorities to remove him notwithstanding the application of interim measure. The Government submitted that the applicant “had left for Tajikistan, after the interim measure applied in respect of him earlier, had been discontinued”. On 14 October 2020 the applicant was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment in Tajikistan (reduced to eight years on appeal, owing to general pardon). 39703/20
03/09/2020
S.P. 1988
Uzbekistan
Moscow
Daria TRENINA
Kirill ZHARINOV
Eleonora DAVIDYAN
Detention pending deportation

28 September 2018 – the Oktyabrskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention; the term of detention was later extended. 27 May 2019 – released, as the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kursk refused to extend the term of his detention pending deportation. Detention pending extradition

27 May 2019 – arrested pursuant to a search warrant and extradition request from Uzbek authorities. 28 May 2019 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kursk ordered detention (further extended four times, until 26 June 2020). 26 May 2020 – released from detention on remand, owing to expiry of one-year maximum term of detention pending examination of the extradition request. He was informed that the extradition request had been approved by the Russian Deputy Prosecutor General. “Undesirable” presence decisions

21 and 31 August 2018 – decision that the presence of the applicant is “undesirable” issued, respectively, by the MVD and Ministry of Justice, owing to the applicant’s criminal conviction in Russia and charges of religious extremism pending against him in Uzbekistan;

11 September 2018 – deportation order issued by the MVD;

2 November 2018 – the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk refused his complaint against the above decisions. 30 January 2019 the Kursk Regional Court refused the appeal. Extradition proceedings

18 and 19 March 2016, respectively, international search warrant was issued in the applicant’s name and the applicant was arrested in absentia by the Uzbekistani authorities for being suspected of committing a crime of religious extremism. 8 February 2018 – extradition request was submitted by the Uzbekistani authorities. 23 March 2018 – the Taganskiy Inter‐District prosecutor found that the information submitted by the authorities of Uzbekistan had been insufficient to establish that the acts that the applicant had been charged with had been criminal under Russian law. He issued a ruling stating that additional information was needed from the Uzbekistani authorities before the decision on the applicant’s extradition could be taken. 24 May 2019 the Uzbekistani authorities requested the applicant’s arrest from the Kursk Region MVD in connection with criminal charges pending against him in Uzbekistan, without submitting any new additional material in respect of him. When on 28 May 2019 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kursk ordered S.P.’s detention it noted that the extradition check in respect of the applicant had not at the time been completed owing to the absence of necessary documents. No reference was made at that time and later by the courts to any new information or documents from either Russian or Uzbekistani authorities in respect of the applicant. The courts also stated, without providing details, that “it had not been established that the extradition check could not be completed due to the prosecutor’s ineffective organisation of execution of the extradition request”. 29 July 2020 – the Kursk Regional Court approved the order for extradition of the applicant. 23 November 2020 – First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction remitted the applicant’s case for a fresh examination. Prosecutor appealed against that decision. 18 March 2021 - First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction in Saratov granted the Prosecutor’s appeal and remitted the case for re‐examination by the 1st Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction. 14 April 2021 – First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction upheld the Prosecutor’s order of extradition. Not applicable in the present case – this issue was examined in another application brought by S.P. before the Court (application no. 44546/18)
Criminal proceedings in Russia

2 October 2017 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of organising illegal mass migration; sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. 28 September 2018 released from the colony and immediately placed in the Sakharovo detention centre, pending deportation. 20 September 2018 – provisional measure taken by the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk pending examination of the complaint against decisions of the MVD and Ministry of Justice and deportation order. Interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court

21 September 2018 – interim measure applied by the Court in the applicant’s case no. 44546/18 (S.P. v. Russia [Committee], 18 May 2021) indicating that the applicant should not be removed to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant alleged that the extradition check in his case lasted for about two and a half years (between February 2018 and May 2020) and he was detained during which period no actions were taken by the Prosecutor General with a view of ascertaining whether the grounds for his extradition existed and the process was unjustifiably delayed. 41820/20
23/09/2020
F.K. 1975
Tajikistan
Dushanbe
Daria TRENINA
Kirill ZHARINOV
Eleonora DAVIDYAN
Detention pending extradition

20 January 2018 – 18 July 2018 (released on his own recognisance and undertaking proper conduct). Detention pending administrative expulsion

20 September 2020 – detained for breaching immigration regulations. Extradition proceedings

21 January 2018 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition check. No information about the progress or outcome of those proceedings made available to the applicant. Administrative expulsion proceedings

22 September 2020 the Kingisepp Town Court of the Leningrad Region found the applicant guilty of breaching immigration regulations, fined him and ordered his forced administrative expulsion (order for detention pending expulsion not issued). 20 October 2020 the Leningrad Regional Court confirmed the order for expulsion of the applicant. Temporary asylum proceedings

3 October 2019 – the Moscow MVD refused the applicant’s request for temporary asylum. 27 November 2019 – the decision upheld by the MVD of Russia. 15 October 2020 - the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow upheld the refusal of temporary asylum, referring to the position of the FSB that granting asylum to the applicant would not be “appropriate”. 8 September 2021 – the Moscow |City Court – confirmed the above judgment. Refugee status proceedings

10 October 2018 the Saint-Petersburg MVD refused the applicant’s request of refugee status. 19 November 2018 – that decision was upheld by the MVD of Russia. 13 March 2019 – the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow upheld the decision. 18 November 2019 – the Moscow City Court confirmed the above decisions. Interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court

25 September 2020 – the Court applied interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal to Tajikistan. The applicant also submitted that on 22 September 2020 the order for his removal had not entered into force and the Government’s replies to the Court’s questions about the circumstances preceding his departure on that day were evasive. In particular, the applicant stated that the order for his expulsion had not provided for his detention pending expulsion, yet he was apprehended immediately after the court hearing and the Government failed to provide an explanation as to what happened to him after the hearing. He further submitted documents confirming that his lawyer alerted the authorities that the applicant was missing after the court hearing concerning his expulsion. He contended that despite this, the authorities had taken no tangible steps to establish the circumstances of his disappearance and to bring perpetrators involved in his abduction to justice, which proved that State agents had been involved in his disappearance immediately after the court hearing. According to the statement of 2 April 2021 prepared by his lawyer in Tajikistan and signed by the applicant, on 22 September 2020 at 3 p.m. immediately after the court hearing he was apprehended allegedly by FSB officers dressed in plain clothes who took him to Domodedovo airport (Moscow) for removal at 11:50 p.m. on that day and accompanied him on his flight to Tajikistan in “a military aircraft”. The applicant submitted that upon arrival to Tajikistan, he had been detained and tortured. On 4 January 2021 he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The Government submitted that (i) the Kingisepp Town Court did not order the applicant’s placement in the centre for detention of foreigners; (ii) the enforcement proceedings in respect of expulsion order had not been initiated at the Federal Bailiff’s Service for the Leningrad Region; (iii) the letter of 21 September 2020 from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Tajikistan stated that the search for the applicant should be terminated because the applicant was going back to Tajikistan of his own volition; and (iv) that the border crossing entries showed that the applicant had left Russia for Tajikistan on 22 September 2020 through a checkpoint in Domodedovo Airport (Moscow). APPENDIX II
Application no. Just Satisfaction requested
Just Satisfaction granted
29958/20
A.Y. v. Russia
Non-pecuniary damage: 30,000 euros (EUR)

Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 2,325
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 2,625
Ms E. Davidayn: EUR 975
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand), to be payable to Ms D. Trenina’s bank account, for subsequent transfer to A.Y. Costs and Expenses:
no award
39703/20
S.P. v. Russia
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000

Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 1,350
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 600
Ms E. Davidayn: EUR 1,050
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000 (three thousand), to be paid directly to Mr Zharinov’s bank account for subsequent transfer to S.P. Costs and Expenses:
no award
41820/20
F.K. v. Russia
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 30,000

Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 1,875
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 2,400
Ms E. Davidyan: EUR 1,875
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand), to be paid directly to Ms Davidyan’s bank account for subsequent transfer to F.K. Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 1,875 (one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five), to be paid directly to Ms Trenina’s account
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred), to be paid directly to Ms Zharinov’s account
Ms E. Davidyan: EUR 1,875 (one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five), to be paid directly to Ms Davidyan’s account

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF A.Y. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 29958/20 and 2 others - see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 January 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.Y. and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jolien Schukking, President, Peeter Roosma, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning ordered expulsion of two applicants and forcible transfer of one of the applicants to Tajikistan, lack of effective domestic remedies, interference with an effective exercise by one of the applicants of right to an individual application and unlawful detention of two of the applicants pending expulsion, and the decision to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the decision to give priority (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) to the applications nos. 29958/20 and 41820/20 and the decision to indicate interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in those applications;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns (i) the ordered expulsion of two of the applicants (A.Y. and F.K.) and the alleged abduction and forced transfer of one of them (F.K.) to Tajikistan; (ii) the alleged lack of official investigation into the alleged abduction and transfer of F.K. ; (iii) the alleged absence of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints; (iv) the alleged breach of A.Y.’s right of individual application; and (v) the allegedly unlawful detention of applicants, F.K. and S.P., pending their expulsion. 2. The applicants’ personal details and other relevant information about their cases are set out in Appendix I. 3. In 2015 and 2017 the Tajikistani authorities charged A.Y. and F.K. with crime of political extremism. S.P. was charged with crime of religious extremism in 2016 in Uzbekistan. The pre-trial detention of the applicants was ordered in absentia, and international search warrants were issued by the national authorities of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The applicants were detained in Russia pending their extradition. The Russian authorities subsequently ordered administrative expulsion of A.K. and F.K. to Tajikistan and S.P. to Uzbekistan and they were detained pending their expulsion (see Appendix I). On different dates the Court granted requests for the application of interim measures in respect of A.Y. and F.K. A.Y. was transferred to Tajikistan on 21 July 2020 by a regular flight; the Government contended that the interim measure issued earlier had been lifted by that time. F.K. was, allegedly, transferred to Tajikistan in a military aircraft on 22 September 2020 from the Domodedovo airport (Moscow). The Russian Government disputed this allegation and suggested that the applicant had left Russia voluntarily for Tajikistan on that day (see Appendix I). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 5. Applicants A.Y. and F.K. complained that the Russian authorities had failed to duly consider their claims that their expulsion to Tajikistan, if carried out, would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment there (see Appendix I). The Government submitted that both applicants had not demonstrated that substantial grounds existed for believing that they would face the real risk of treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their expulsion. 6. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 7. In so far as A.Y.’s and F.K.’s complaint concerns the risk of ill‐treatment that they ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by 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 Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010). Furthermore, given the nature of the charges against the applicants, the manner in which the indictment was issued against them (see Appendix I “Removal proceedings”) and perfunctory judicial review of their allegations by the domestic courts (ibid), the Court finds no reason to depart from its earlier findings in similar cases and concludes that at the time of their ordered expulsion to Tajikistan a real risk had existed that A.Y. and F.K. would be subjected in Tajikistan to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 on account of A.Y.’s and F.K.’s ordered expulsion to Tajikistan. 8. F.K. also complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, about his alleged abduction and illegal transfer to Tajikistan (see Appendix I, “Detention” and “Other relevant information”). The Government denied any involvement in his departure for Tajikistan. 9. As in other similar cases, the Court should examine whether the authorities (i) complied with their obligation to protect the applicant against the risk of the treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention; (ii) conducted an effective investigation into the applicant’s disappearance, and (iii) should be held accountable for the applicant’s disappearance (see Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, § 59, 21 May 2015). 10. Having regard to its findings in paragraph 7 above and taking into account the circumstances of F.K.’s case which are very similar to other cases where the repetitive pattern of disappearances was established of applicants who were last seen in the custody of State authorities, the Court is satisfied that the Russian authorities were aware that F.K. could face a forcible transfer to the country where he could be subjected to torture or ill-treatment and that relevant measures of protection should have been taken by them (see Mukhitdinov, cited above, § 62, and, as a recent example, N.K. v. Russia [Committee], no. 45761/18, 29 March 2022). 11. Furthermore, where, as in the present case, the authorities of a State party are informed of illegal transfer of a person from Russia, they have an obligation under the Convention to conduct an effective investigation (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, § 190). The Court however notes from the material of the case file that no attempt was made to carry out thorough investigation into F.K.’s alleged abduction (see Appendix I, “Other relevant information”). 12. Lastly, in the view of the above and having regard to the facts as alleged by the applicant and his representatives and confirmed by their detailed written statements, and the Government’s failure to substantiate their version of facts about voluntary nature of F.K.’s return with results of the domestic investigation or other evidence (see Appendix I, “Other relevant information”, and see Khamidkariyev v. Russia, no. 42332/14, § 120, 26 January 2017), the Court is satisfied that the applicant has been subject of an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, §§ 177‐85, 197-204, 214-19, and compare with N.K. v. Russia, cited above, § 9). 13. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in breach of Article 3, the Russian authorities exposed F.K. to a real risk of ill-treatment in Tajikistan by ordering his removal, that they were implicated in his forcible return there and they failed to carry out an effective investigation into his abduction. 14. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of F.K. on account of his disappearance and forcible transfer to Tajikistan. 15. In so far as A.Y. alleged that his expulsion had been in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of Rules of the Court and that there had been a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of his right of application, the Court notes the following. The Government did not argue before the Court that there had been an exceptional objective impediment which prevented compliance with the interim measure applied by the Court on 21 July 2020 and did not demonstrate that it had taken all reasonable steps to remove the impediment (see Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, § 92, 10 March 2009). The Court has already pointed out recurring failures of the Russian Government to comply with an interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in cases of applicants whose extradition was sought on extremism or terrorism related crimes in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and who disappeared or were illegally transferred there (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, §§ 177-205, and Mukhitdinov, cited above, §§ 59-76 and 91-96, with further references). In the light of that case law and given the circumstances of A.Y.’s case (see Appendix I, “Other relevant proceedings”), the Court accordingly holds that the Russian Government had not complied with an indication of interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court and nothing had objectively impeded that compliance. They therefore failed to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (see O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, §§ 59-63, 21 May 2019). 16. S.P. and F.K. also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 1 which are covered by the well‐established case-law of the Court. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it (see Appendix I, “Detention”), the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 5 § 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see, among many others, R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019). 17. A.Y. and F.K. also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case (see paragraphs 7, 11 and 12 above) and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 18. In the cases of A.Y. and F.K., on dates specified in Appendix I, the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that they should not be removed from Russia to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. In accordance with Article 28 § 2 of the Convention, the present judgment is final. Accordingly, the Court considers that the measures indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of A.Y. and F.K. in the present case have come to an end. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. The applicants claimed the amounts indicated in Appendix II, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. 20. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed by all applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage were excessive and, in any case, no award should be made as no violation of the applicants’ right had taken place. In respect of claim for costs and expenses submitted by A.Y. and S.P., they contended that it should be rejected because no legal services agreements had been submitted in support of it. As for F.K.’s claim for costs and expenses, the Government submitted that the legal services agreement had been made between his lawyers and his wife and that F.K. had not shown that he had actually incurred those expenses. 21. The Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in Appendix II, in respect of non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid directly to the bank accounts of the applicants’ representatives, as indicated, for subsequent transfer to the applicants. 22. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court rejects A.Y.’s and S.P.’s claim for costs and expenses and awards F.K., under this head, the amount indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, to be paid directly to the bank accounts of his representatives, and dismisses the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and to F.K. in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and both awards to be payable directly to the representatives’ bank accounts, as indicated in Appendix II;
(b) that 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Jolien Schukking Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX I
No. Application no. Lodged on
Applicant’s initials or name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
Represented by
Detention
Removal proceedings
Temporary asylum / Refugee status proceedings
Other relevant information
29958/20
21/07/2020
A.Y. 1989
Tajikistan
Moscow
Daria TRENINA
Kirill ZHARINOV
Eleonora DAVIDYAN
Detention pending extradition
2 March 2015 arrested in Moscow;
8 June 2016 – released, owing to having received a temporary asylum status;
15 June 2018 arrested pursuant to an international search warrant;
19 June 2018 – released with reference to the decision of 8 June 2016. Detention pending administrative expulsion

19 June 2018 – arrested for breaching immigration regulations. 20 June 2018 – detention ordered by the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow;

In immigration detention between 20 June 2018 and 21 July 2020 (two years and one month)

21 July 2020 – expelled to Tajikistan. Extradition proceedings
12 and 15 January 2015, respectively, - charged with a crime of political extremism and arrested in absentia by the Tajikistani authorities. Administrative expulsion proceedings

20 June 2018 - the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of breaching migration regulations and ordered his detention pending expulsion. 16 July 2018 - the Moscow City Court upheld the order for expulsion of the applicant. Removal not carried out, owing to bailiff’s ban of 13 March 2018 on the applicant’s leaving the country owing to unpaid fines. The ban was subsequently extended. 17 February 2020 - the ban on leave was lifted by mistake. 24 March 2020 - the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow refused to terminate the expulsion proceedings and to release the applicant. 14 May 2020 – the Moscow City Court upheld that decision. No thorough assessment was made by the courts of risks that the applicant faced in Tajikistan in light of criminal charges pending against him there. Temporary asylum proceedings
26 February 2016 – refused temporary asylum by the Moscow Region Federal Migration Service (“FMS”). 3 June 2016 – granted temporary asylum by the Moscow Region FMS for six months. 31 January 2019 - the Moscow FMS refused his new request for temporary asylum. 21 March 2019 - the Russia FMS upheld the refusal of temporary asylum. 27 February 2020 - the FMS Moscow refused his new request for temporary asylum. 13 July 2020 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal to grant him temporary asylum. 14 October 2020 – the Moscow City Court upheld the dismissal. Refugee proceedings
5 December 2019 – allegedly not allowed by the Interior Ministry of Moscow (“MVD”) migration service to apply for refugee status; allowed to use only a temporary asylum procedure. 11 June 2020 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the Moscow MVD migration service’s refusal to be allowed to apply for refugee status; appeal filed. 20 April 2020 the Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the above judgment. The domestic courts limited their reasoning to general statements about the absence of any risks for the applicant. No assessment of arguments was made in the light of the Court’s case law concerning the treatment of persons accused of extremism-related crimes in Tajikistan and international reports on that matter. No real assessment of whether substantial grounds had been shown for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court

1st interim measure (in application no. 20033/19 brought by the same applicant):

15 April 2019 - the Court granted the applicant’s request under Rule 39 and indicated to the Russian Government not to remove the applicant to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 14 November 2019 – the Court discontinued the application of the interim measure (see application no. 20033/19 (Appendix) for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of Article 3 complaint. On 21 July 2020 the applicant called his lawyer informing him that he was being transferred to one of the Moscow airports for expulsion to Tajikistan. 2nd interim measure:
21 July 2020 - the Court granted the applicant’s request under Rule 39 in the present application and indicated to the Russian Government not to remove the applicant to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant stated that the Government had been informed of the application of the 2nd interim measure by the Court four hours before the applicant’s flight on 21 July 2021 to Tajikistan, which had been sufficient enough time to process it and to stop his expulsion (see O.O. v. Russia, 36321/16, 21 May 2019, § 62). Moreover, the applicant’s lawyers themselves informed all State bodies (border control and airport police) concerned about the pending interim measure. Finally, the applicant submitted that he had been removed at the time when the temporary asylum and refugee proceedings in respect of him had still been pending, which showed strong determination of the authorities to remove him notwithstanding the application of interim measure. The Government submitted that the applicant “had left for Tajikistan, after the interim measure applied in respect of him earlier, had been discontinued”. On 14 October 2020 the applicant was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment in Tajikistan (reduced to eight years on appeal, owing to general pardon). 39703/20
03/09/2020
S.P. 1988
Uzbekistan
Moscow
Daria TRENINA
Kirill ZHARINOV
Eleonora DAVIDYAN
Detention pending deportation

28 September 2018 – the Oktyabrskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention; the term of detention was later extended. 27 May 2019 – released, as the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kursk refused to extend the term of his detention pending deportation. Detention pending extradition

27 May 2019 – arrested pursuant to a search warrant and extradition request from Uzbek authorities. 28 May 2019 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kursk ordered detention (further extended four times, until 26 June 2020). 26 May 2020 – released from detention on remand, owing to expiry of one-year maximum term of detention pending examination of the extradition request. He was informed that the extradition request had been approved by the Russian Deputy Prosecutor General. “Undesirable” presence decisions

21 and 31 August 2018 – decision that the presence of the applicant is “undesirable” issued, respectively, by the MVD and Ministry of Justice, owing to the applicant’s criminal conviction in Russia and charges of religious extremism pending against him in Uzbekistan;

11 September 2018 – deportation order issued by the MVD;

2 November 2018 – the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk refused his complaint against the above decisions. 30 January 2019 the Kursk Regional Court refused the appeal. Extradition proceedings

18 and 19 March 2016, respectively, international search warrant was issued in the applicant’s name and the applicant was arrested in absentia by the Uzbekistani authorities for being suspected of committing a crime of religious extremism. 8 February 2018 – extradition request was submitted by the Uzbekistani authorities. 23 March 2018 – the Taganskiy Inter‐District prosecutor found that the information submitted by the authorities of Uzbekistan had been insufficient to establish that the acts that the applicant had been charged with had been criminal under Russian law. He issued a ruling stating that additional information was needed from the Uzbekistani authorities before the decision on the applicant’s extradition could be taken. 24 May 2019 the Uzbekistani authorities requested the applicant’s arrest from the Kursk Region MVD in connection with criminal charges pending against him in Uzbekistan, without submitting any new additional material in respect of him. When on 28 May 2019 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kursk ordered S.P.’s detention it noted that the extradition check in respect of the applicant had not at the time been completed owing to the absence of necessary documents. No reference was made at that time and later by the courts to any new information or documents from either Russian or Uzbekistani authorities in respect of the applicant. The courts also stated, without providing details, that “it had not been established that the extradition check could not be completed due to the prosecutor’s ineffective organisation of execution of the extradition request”. 29 July 2020 – the Kursk Regional Court approved the order for extradition of the applicant. 23 November 2020 – First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction remitted the applicant’s case for a fresh examination. Prosecutor appealed against that decision. 18 March 2021 - First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction in Saratov granted the Prosecutor’s appeal and remitted the case for re‐examination by the 1st Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction. 14 April 2021 – First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction upheld the Prosecutor’s order of extradition. Not applicable in the present case – this issue was examined in another application brought by S.P. before the Court (application no. 44546/18)
Criminal proceedings in Russia

2 October 2017 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of organising illegal mass migration; sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. 28 September 2018 released from the colony and immediately placed in the Sakharovo detention centre, pending deportation. 20 September 2018 – provisional measure taken by the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk pending examination of the complaint against decisions of the MVD and Ministry of Justice and deportation order. Interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court

21 September 2018 – interim measure applied by the Court in the applicant’s case no. 44546/18 (S.P. v. Russia [Committee], 18 May 2021) indicating that the applicant should not be removed to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant alleged that the extradition check in his case lasted for about two and a half years (between February 2018 and May 2020) and he was detained during which period no actions were taken by the Prosecutor General with a view of ascertaining whether the grounds for his extradition existed and the process was unjustifiably delayed. 41820/20
23/09/2020
F.K. 1975
Tajikistan
Dushanbe
Daria TRENINA
Kirill ZHARINOV
Eleonora DAVIDYAN
Detention pending extradition

20 January 2018 – 18 July 2018 (released on his own recognisance and undertaking proper conduct). Detention pending administrative expulsion

20 September 2020 – detained for breaching immigration regulations. Extradition proceedings

21 January 2018 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition check. No information about the progress or outcome of those proceedings made available to the applicant. Administrative expulsion proceedings

22 September 2020 the Kingisepp Town Court of the Leningrad Region found the applicant guilty of breaching immigration regulations, fined him and ordered his forced administrative expulsion (order for detention pending expulsion not issued). 20 October 2020 the Leningrad Regional Court confirmed the order for expulsion of the applicant. Temporary asylum proceedings

3 October 2019 – the Moscow MVD refused the applicant’s request for temporary asylum. 27 November 2019 – the decision upheld by the MVD of Russia. 15 October 2020 - the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow upheld the refusal of temporary asylum, referring to the position of the FSB that granting asylum to the applicant would not be “appropriate”. 8 September 2021 – the Moscow |City Court – confirmed the above judgment. Refugee status proceedings

10 October 2018 the Saint-Petersburg MVD refused the applicant’s request of refugee status. 19 November 2018 – that decision was upheld by the MVD of Russia. 13 March 2019 – the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow upheld the decision. 18 November 2019 – the Moscow City Court confirmed the above decisions. Interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court

25 September 2020 – the Court applied interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal to Tajikistan. The applicant also submitted that on 22 September 2020 the order for his removal had not entered into force and the Government’s replies to the Court’s questions about the circumstances preceding his departure on that day were evasive. In particular, the applicant stated that the order for his expulsion had not provided for his detention pending expulsion, yet he was apprehended immediately after the court hearing and the Government failed to provide an explanation as to what happened to him after the hearing. He further submitted documents confirming that his lawyer alerted the authorities that the applicant was missing after the court hearing concerning his expulsion. He contended that despite this, the authorities had taken no tangible steps to establish the circumstances of his disappearance and to bring perpetrators involved in his abduction to justice, which proved that State agents had been involved in his disappearance immediately after the court hearing. According to the statement of 2 April 2021 prepared by his lawyer in Tajikistan and signed by the applicant, on 22 September 2020 at 3 p.m. immediately after the court hearing he was apprehended allegedly by FSB officers dressed in plain clothes who took him to Domodedovo airport (Moscow) for removal at 11:50 p.m. on that day and accompanied him on his flight to Tajikistan in “a military aircraft”. The applicant submitted that upon arrival to Tajikistan, he had been detained and tortured. On 4 January 2021 he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The Government submitted that (i) the Kingisepp Town Court did not order the applicant’s placement in the centre for detention of foreigners; (ii) the enforcement proceedings in respect of expulsion order had not been initiated at the Federal Bailiff’s Service for the Leningrad Region; (iii) the letter of 21 September 2020 from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Tajikistan stated that the search for the applicant should be terminated because the applicant was going back to Tajikistan of his own volition; and (iv) that the border crossing entries showed that the applicant had left Russia for Tajikistan on 22 September 2020 through a checkpoint in Domodedovo Airport (Moscow). APPENDIX II
Application no. Just Satisfaction requested
Just Satisfaction granted
29958/20
A.Y. v. Russia
Non-pecuniary damage: 30,000 euros (EUR)

Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 2,325
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 2,625
Ms E. Davidayn: EUR 975
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand), to be payable to Ms D. Trenina’s bank account, for subsequent transfer to A.Y. Costs and Expenses:
no award
39703/20
S.P. v. Russia
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000

Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 1,350
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 600
Ms E. Davidayn: EUR 1,050
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000 (three thousand), to be paid directly to Mr Zharinov’s bank account for subsequent transfer to S.P. Costs and Expenses:
no award
41820/20
F.K. v. Russia
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 30,000

Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 1,875
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 2,400
Ms E. Davidyan: EUR 1,875
Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand), to be paid directly to Ms Davidyan’s bank account for subsequent transfer to F.K. Costs and Expenses:
Ms D. Trenina: EUR 1,875 (one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five), to be paid directly to Ms Trenina’s account
Mr K. Zharinov: EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred), to be paid directly to Ms Zharinov’s account
Ms E. Davidyan: EUR 1,875 (one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five), to be paid directly to Ms Davidyan’s account