ECtHR - M.K. v. Russia, Application no. 35346/16, 27 February 2018

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Country of Applicant: 
Syria
Date of Decision: 
27-02-2018
Citation: 
Application no. 35346/16
Court Name: 
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section)
Headnote: 

The Court indicated interim measures (under Rule 39) to Russia after the order of removal of a Syrian national who applied for asylum after the expiry of his student visa. Subsequently, the applicant applied to the Court against the Russian Federation claiming that Russia had breached his rights under Articles 2, 3, 5(1)(f) and 5(4) of the Convention.

Facts: 

The applicant is a Syrian national who arrived with a study visa in Russia on 24 April 2015 and applied for asylum after his study visa expired based on the risk of his life and safety in the light of the on-going conflict in Syria.

His application was denied by the migration authorities, and he was placed in detention pursuant the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk’s expulsion order on 9 June 2016 which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic on the following day.

On 19 January 2017, the judgment was amended by the Court of the Russian Federation following the intervention of the ECtHR on 22 June 2016 under the Rule 39 (interim measures) to the Government, since the removal of the applicant to Syria  would entail a risk to his life.

On 20 January 2017 the applicant left Russia for Lebanon.

The applicant complained that his expulsion to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of his right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, he also raised complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, that his detention pending expulsion proceedings had been arbitrary and prolonged, and that he had not had access to an effective judicial review of his detention

Decision & Reasoning: 
  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION

The Court dismissed the examination of the application under Article 2 and 3 of the Convention and the closely linked complaints under Article 13 of the Convention since the applicant left Russia for a safe third country and had settled there.

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION

The Court declared the claim admissible and noted that the applicant was detained pending his expulsion for the period of approximately six months until the applicant’s voluntary departure from Russia. It also noted that the possibility of enforcement of his expulsion was reviewed on a monthly basis by the domestic courts. Also, the Court considered that there was no evidence indicating any arbitrariness in respect of the applicant’s detention or, more particularly, bad faith, deception or unjustified delays in respect of the authorities’ conduct. Furthermore, the Court noted, that given the swiftness of the national proceedings and monthly review of the possibility of enforcement of his expulsion by the domestic courts together with the relatively short period of detention, the applicant’s individual situation was devoid of the deficiencies alleged. Therefore, the Court found that there had been no violation of the applicant’ rights under Article 5(1)(f) and 5(4) of the Convention.

Outcome: 

The Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases concerning complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and ruled that there has been no violation of Article 5 of the Convention.

Observations/Comments: 

This case summary was written by Fanni Bunevacz.

Case Law Cited: 

ECtHR - Rakhmonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 11673/15

ECtHR - S.K. v. Russia, Application no. 52722/15, 14 February 2017
Authentic Language: 
English
State Party: 
Russia
National / Other Legislative Provisions: 
Russia - Section 34(5) of the Foreigners Act (Law no. 115-FZ of 25 July 2002)
Russia - Article 3.10 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences
Russia - Articles 3.10 § 5
27.1 § 1 and 27.19 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences
Russia - Article 31.9 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences