Communicated cases against Russia and Poland

Date: 
Wednesday, January 30, 2019

The European Court of Human Rights has recently communicated two asylum-related cases against Russia and Poland:

  • K.Z. and Dalerdzhon Bozorovich BURIYEV against Russia (applications no. 35960/18 and 42874/18): The applicants are Tajik nationals who were charged with religious and politically motivated crimes in Tajikistan, followed by detention orders in absentia and international search warrants. After arresting and detaining the applicants, the Russian authorities decided to remove them to Tajikistan despite their claims that they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Despite the Court’s granting of their Rule 39 requests, one of the applicants was deported to Tajikistan (case no. 42874/18). The applicant in this case complains that the Russian authorities exposed him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 and breached the Court’s interim measures, resulted in hindrance of the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention. The applicant in case 35960/18 complains of a violation of Article 3 if he is returned to Tajikistan.
     
  • R.M. and others against Poland (application no. 11247/18): The case concerns a family of Russian nationals who applied for international protection in Poland. After their application was rejected, they applied for asylum in Germany but were eventually sent back to Poland. They applied for international protection once more and an order for their detention was issued in September 2017, based on the fact that they previously had fled to Germany. Despite numerous legal challenges against their detention, based on lack of information and the mental health situation of one of the children, they were kept under detention until April 2018. The applicant complains that the detention of her children and herself constituted treatment contrary to Article 3 and violated Article 5 1 (f) of the Convention. They further complain of a violation of Article 5 (4) due to lack of information regarding the extension of their detention and Article 8, with regard to disproportionate interference with their right to family life.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.  

                                                     

 

Keywords: 
Detention
Family unity (right to)
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment