CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 décembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   881 4.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT Y v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Y v. Russia (application no. 20113/07).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Mr and Mrs Y., are married. The first applicant is a Chinese national, who was born in 1934. The second applicant is a Russian national, who was born in 1951. Prior to the Mr   Y’s deportation to China in May 2007 both applicants lived in St.   Petersburg (Russia).   Mr Y., a retired university professor, first applied for asylum 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 the courts. Subsequent applications were also unsuccessful.   While the different asylum proceedings were pending, in March 2005 the Mr Y. suffered a stroke and appears to have been admitted to hospital for several days. After leaving hospital he stayed at the second applicant’s home. On 5 April 2005 the applicants married in the Leningrad Region. Mr Y. produced a document showing that his previous marriage had ended in divorce in China in 2003.   On 13 May 2007 officials from the Migration Department, in the presence of a doctor, entered the applicants’ apartment in St. Petersburg and removed the applicant. The same evening he was deported to China.   A request to the European Court of Human Rights for interim measures was rejected.   Proceedings initiated by the prosecutor’s office concerning the validity of the applicants’ marriage are still pending after the marriage had been declared null and void at first instance, a decision which was overturned on appeal.   The applicants’ complaints about the lawfulness of the first applicant’s deportation were rejected.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14   May 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained about Mr   Y’s deportation to China, about his unlawful detention, about the disruption of their family life and about the absence of domestic remedies. They relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and to Article   1 of Protocol No.   7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Whether the first applicant was in danger of ill-treatment in China   The Court noted that 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 first and second applicant’s statements and other evidence, they had found 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 Falun Gong members 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 is involved. The 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, it followed from the second applicant’s statement to the competent District Court 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 treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention upon his return to China.   Whether the conditions of the first applicant’s deportation amounted to a violation of Article   3   In the domestic proceedings it had been established that the first applicant 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 the doctor and provided with food and drink.   Nor was it alleged that the first applicant’s 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, the Court did not find that his removal from Russia involved a violation of Article 3 on account of his medical condition.   The applicants’ other complaints were declared inadmissible.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.