CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sADDDE81A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } Communicated on 23 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 19657/18 M.J. against Azerbaijan lodged on 24 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Turkish national. The application concerns his detention in Azerbaijan and forcible removal to Turkey on account of his alleged affiliation with the Gülen movement.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the available information, did the applicant’s forcible removal to Turkey expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1   (f) of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention pending removal, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have an arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention for the purposes of his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention? If so, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, by which he could have challenged his removal on the grounds that he would risk being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if removed? If yes, did such a remedy provide guarantees of accessibility, quality, speed and suspensive effect?