CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 décembre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 114 December 2008 Y. v. Russia - 20113/07 Judgment 4.12.2008 [Section I] Article 3 Expulsion Expulsion to China despite grant of refugee status by UNHCR: no violation   Facts : The first applicant, a Chinese national, lived in St   Petersburg with his wife, the second applicant, who is a Russian national. Upon his arrival in Russia, the first applicant, a retired university professor, obtained refugee status under the mandate of the UNCHR office in Moscow. He then applied for asylum in Russia in April 2003 claiming that he would be at risk of persecution as a result of his membership of the Falun Gong movement if he returned to China. His application was rejected by the immigration authorities, who were not convinced that he faced a real danger of persecution. This decision was confirmed in ensuing court proceedings. His subsequent applications were also unsuccessful. While the asylum proceedings were pending, in March 2005 the first applicant suffered a stroke and was admitted to hospital. In April 2005 the applicants married in the Leningrad Region. In May 2007 officials from the Migration Department, in the presence of a doctor, entered the applicants' apartment in St   Petersburg and removed the first applicant. The same evening he was deported to China. A request to the European Court for interim measures to be ordered was rejected. Law : Possible danger of ill-treatment in China : Neither the Migration Department nor the courts had doubted that the first applicant was a follower of the Falun Dafa in Russia. However, after examining the applicants' statements and other available evidence, they had concluded that he was not known to the Chinese authorities as an active member of the Falun Gong and that his involvement could not be regarded as putting him at real risk of ill-treatment upon his return. International reports on the situation of Falun Gong practitioners in China showed that although they were under a threat of persecution, every case had to be assessed on an individual basis, in so far as the risk of ill-treatment was involved. The first applicant had failed to adduce any reliable evidence in support of his claims that his activities, either in China or in Russia, would put him at real risk of being treated in a way that was incompatible with Article   3. Furthermore, the second applicant's statement to the competent District Court indicated that after returning to China the first applicant had moved in with his son and there was no information that he had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3. As to the fact that the first applicant had been granted refugee status by the UNHCR Office in Moscow in March 2003, the Court found it extremely regrettable that he should have been deported without the UNHCR Office first being informed. However, taking into account the difference in the scope of protection afforded by Article 3 of the Convention and by the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the particular circumstances of the case before it, the Court considered that this fact alone could not justify altering its conclusions as to the well-foundedness of the first applicant's claim under Article 3. It had accordingly not been established that there were sufficient grounds for believing that the first applicant faced a real risk of ill-treatment upon his return to China. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Conditions of the first applicant's deportation : It was established in the domestic proceedings that he had been examined by a neurologist and found to be fit to travel. The doctor's credentials and conclusions had been found to be valid and well-founded. During the flight the first applicant had been accompanied by a doctor and provided with food and drink. Further, it was never alleged that his medical condition had been of such an exceptional nature that humanitarian considerations prevented his removal, or that the required treatment would not be available to him in China. The Court acknowledged that the deportation procedure may have caused the first applicant significant stress and mental anguish. However, and in particular taking into account the high threshold set by Article 3 of the Convention, it did not find that his removal from Russia involved a violation of that provision on account of his medical condition. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes