CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 29 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57965/19 D.D. against Turkey lodged on 30 October 2019 communicated on 10 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Uzbek national who fled to Turkey in 2013 for alleged fear of persecution due to his religious and political beliefs. The application mainly concerns the applicant’s threatened deportation to Uzbekistan, where he would allegedly face a real risk of ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. On 31 October 2018 the Turkish authorities issued an order for the applicant’s deportation on two grounds, namely that he posed a risk for public order and that he overstayed his residence permit. On 17 December 2018 a second deportation order was issued against him based on suspicions regarding his affiliation with terrorist organisations. On 9 April 2019 the applicant’s objection against the initial deportation order was upheld insofar as it concerned the first deportation ground, as the alleged risk to public order was considered to be unfounded. However, the objection was dismissed in respect of the second ground, for the applicant’s stay in Turkey had become irregular due to his failure to extend his residence permit. On 27 May 2019 the second deportation order was annulled by the administrative court for lack of evidence of involvement with terrorist organisations. The applicant subsequently lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court and also requested an interim measure to stop his deportation to Uzbekistan, where he claimed he would face persecution. In support of his arguments, the applicant relied, inter alia , on information shared by Uzbek authorities with their Turkish counterparts regarding his alleged ties with Syria. On 25 July 2019 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s interim measure request and dismissed his individual application, finding his claims regarding the risk of ill-treatment and persecution in Uzbekistan unsubstantiated. On 8 November 2019 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Turkey for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation to Uzbekistan? If so, would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention as he alleges if he were to be deported to Uzbekistan, on account of his religious convictions? 2.     Did the national authorities and courts fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of ill ‑ treatment if removed to Uzbekistan, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Auad v.   Bulgaria , no.   46390/10, §§ 95-108, 11   October 2011; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016; and Babajanov v.   Turkey , no.   49867/08, §§   41-49, 10 May 2016)? 3.     On which grounds was the applicant issued a humanitarian residence permit in 2015? Why did the applicant fail to extend his humanitarian residence status following its expiry in 2016? The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to the deportation proceedings, including any assessment undertaken by the domestic authorities as to the possible risks faced by the applicant in case of removal to Uzbekistan. The applicant is also requested to submit further information regarding any individual risks that he runs if returned to Uzbekistan .