New communicated cases against Ukraine, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Switzerland

Friday, October 18, 2019
  • Turdikhojaev v Ukraine (Application No. 72510/12): On 19 June 2012, the applicant, an Uzbekistan national, was arrested on charges relating to his alleged membership in an extremist organisation in Uzbekistan. He was subsequently detained in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre in a cell allegedly measuring 1.4m2 and his extradition was ordered in January 2013. In April 2013, the applicant was granted asylum in Sweden and the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine was informed that the applicant was therefore to be released. No immediate action was taken. On 6 June 2013, the extradition order was quashed and the applicant was released. It is alleged that the applicant was kept in a metal cage during these final appeal proceedings. The applicant complains that his detention, particularly because of the small size of his cell, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR. He also complains that his detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 1 (f) ECHR on the basis that detention proceedings were not carried out with required diligence.
  • K. G. v Russia (Application No. 7295/19): The applicant is a Tajik national charged with participating in the Islamic State group (ISIS). On 2 November 2017, he was arrested at a roadside check in Russia after an international warrant was issued and was subsequently detained pending extradition. On 28 September 2018 the applicant’s asylum request was rejected and all appeals dismissed. He complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he would be subject to a real risk of ill treatment if extradited to Tajikistan due to his charges with religiously and politically motivated crimes.
  • Jeyhan v Azerbaijan (Application No. 19657/18): The applicant is a Turkish national detained in Azerbaijan pending removal to Turkey as a result of his affiliation with the Gülen movement. The applicant complains that he would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if returned to Turkey contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, with an ancillary claim under Article 13. He also complains that his detention is unlawful under Article 5 § 1 (f) and that no effective procedure exists to challenge this decision, contrary to Article 5 § 4.
  • Ghadamian v Switzerland (Application No. 21768/19): The applicant is an Iranian national who legally entered Switzerland in 1969, aged 29. He has two male sons who are Swiss citizens and claims to have no social connections in Iran. The applicant was convicted of numerous crimes between 1999 and 2005 resulting in an order for his expulsion in 2000. After release from prison, he was requested to leave immediately. In 2008, the applicant requested his expulsion order be revoked. This request and two subsequent requests were denied on the basis that he was residing illegally in Switzerland. The applicant complains that his expulsion is contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly 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 pusexblished but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.


Family unity (right to)
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Political Opinion