The applicant didn’t prove that he would be at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if he were to be deported. Rejection of the application
JUDGMENT
U. v. France 15.02.2024 (app. no. 53254/20)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the procedure to remove the applicant, a Russian national of Chechen origin, to
Russia. The applicant’s refugee status had been revoked on account of the serious threat his
presence in France posed to State security.
The applicant submitted that the implementation of that measure would expose him to treatment in
breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court found, firstly, that the French authorities had, at each stage of the proceedings to enforce
the removal measure to Russia, conducted a thorough and in-depth examination of the applicant’s
situation.
Secondly, carrying out its own up-to-date assessment of the applicant’s individual situation, the
Court considered that he had not demonstrated before it that there were serious, proven grounds to
believe that, if he were returned to Russia, he would run a real and present risk of being subjected to
treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. It concluded that enforcement of the removal
measure in respect of the applicant would not, in the circumstances of the present case, violate
Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court also declared his complaints concerning his compulsory residence order inadmissible for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
PROVISIONS
Article 3
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant is a Russian national of Chechen origin who was born in 1968 in the Russian
Federation.
The applicant entered France in September 2009. On 15 November 2011 the French Office for the
Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected his asylum application. On 22 May
2012 the National Asylum Court (CNDA) granted the applicant, and his wife, refugee status.
Criminal proceedings in France and revoking of refugee status
In July 2015 the Strasbourg Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to eight months’ imprisonment
for condoning terrorism and for threatening to commit a criminal offence against a public-service
employee and intimidating behaviour towards the latter, events which had occurred in 2014 and 2015. In September 2015 the Colmar Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and increased his sentence to one year’s imprisonment. It also ordered, as an additional penalty, his permanent exclusion from French territory.
In April 2016 the OFPRA revoked the applicant’s refugee status under Article L. 711-6 of the Code
regulating the entry and residence of aliens and asylum-seekers (Code de l’entrée et du séjour des
étrangers et du droit d’asile) on account of the serious threat his presence in France posed to State
security. The CNDA upheld that decision.
In August 2016 the Laon Criminal Court convicted the applicant of illegal possession of category-D
weapons.
The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 7 March 2020, and on 9 March 2020 was
sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for breaching the terms of his compulsory residence
order (assignation à résidence). Upon his release, the applicant was once again placed under a
compulsory residence order on 21 April 2020. He breached the terms of that order, and was again
convicted and sentenced, in April 2020, to five months’ imprisonment. In July 2020, the Toulouse
Court of Appeal increased his sentence to nine months’ imprisonment.
Measures to remove the applicant
In an order of 26 May 2016, the prefect placed the applicant under a compulsory residence order. In
2019 the applicant breached its terms and left France for Belgium, where he applied for asylum. The
Belgian authorities returned him to France under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (the
Dublin III Regulation). Following the applicant’s arrival in France, the Haute-Garonne prefect ordered
his placement in administrative detention, which was extended to 28 days by an order of the
liberties and detention judge.
On 16 January 2020 the Haute-Garonne prefect ordered that the applicant was to be removed to the
country of which he was a national or to any other country to which he would be legally admitted.
On 22 January 2020 the Toulouse Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action to have that
order set aside.
In an opinion of 14 February 2020, the CNDA considered that, since the applicant remained a
refugee despite his refugee status having been revoked, the order of 16 January 2020 determining
the destination country had to be set aside in so far as it concerned his removal to Russia. In a
judgment of 8 February 2021, the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of
22 February 2020, including the findings concerning the absence of risk in the event of the applicant
being returned to Russia. The Conseil d’État declared inadmissible an appeal lodged by the applicant
against that judgment.
On 21 April 2020, on his release from detention, the applicant was once again placed under a
compulsory residence order in the Haute-Garonne département. He breached that order, and was
accordingly sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. At the end of that period, on 27 November
2020, the Haute-Garonne prefect ordered his placement in administrative detention.
In an order of 11 December 2020, the applicant was placed under a compulsory residence order in
the Ardennes département. On 31 May 2021 the applicant appealed against that order to the Paris
Administrative Court, which dismissed his appeal in a judgment of 1 July 2022.
On 4 July 2022 the applicant applied to the Minister of the Interior to have the compulsoryresidence measure revoked. His request, which went unanswered, was deemed to have been
rejected.
On 23 October 2023 the applicant was placed in administrative detention. On 26 October 2023 the
prefect and the applicant both applied to the liberties and detention judge: the prefect asked for an
extension of the administrative detention, and the applicant asked to have the order to place him in administrative detention set aside. The liberties and detention judge declared the prefect’s request inadmissible and ordered the applicant’s release.
In two orders of 8 November 2023, the prefect determined Russia as the destination country and
held that the applicant was to remain in detention pending his removal to that country.
Applications to the Court and requests for interim measures
On 4 May 2016, and again on 3 March 2020, the Court, in response to successive requests for
interim measures, indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the
applicant should not be returned to the Russian Federation.
On 8 December 2020, in response to a further request for an interim measure, the Court indicated to
the Government that they were not to return the applicant to Russia for the duration of the
proceedings before it.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 3
The Court had already held that, in spite of reports of serious human rights violations in Chechnya,
the general situation in the North Caucasus region was not such that any return to the Russian
Federation would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
In the present case, the Court considered that the applicant’s personal situation, and in particular
the assessment of the risks that he alleged he would face if the removal measure to Russia were
enforced, had been examined in depth by both the administrative authorities and the domestic
courts in the context of their review of the implementation of the removal measure.
Firstly, before issuing the order of 16 January 2020 specifying Russia as the country of destination,
the relevant administrative authority had examined the applicant’s personal situation. Following
that examination, the prefect had considered that, while the applicant had submitted that he would
be subjected to threats in his country of origin, he had not provided any evidence of a real, personal
and present risk of such a nature as to prevent his return.
Secondly, the order specifying the destination country had been subjected to judicial review on
three occasions – at first instance, on appeal and by the Court of Cassation. Following an in-depth
examination of the applicant’s situation, the three appeals had been dismissed in decisions
containing relevant and sufficient reasons.
Lastly, the Court noted that the order of 16 January 2020 specifying the country of destination
remained in force in the domestic legal framework, given that all of the appeals lodged by the
applicant with the administrative courts had been dismissed. The prefect had, on 8 November 2023,
issued a fresh order specifying Russia as the country of destination, after reassessing the applicant’s
individual situation with regard to the risks that he would face if returned to Russia. In order to carry
out that up-to-date assessment, he had requested the applicant to provide observations on the
destination country. At the close of his examination, he had considered that it had not been
demonstrated that the applicant would be exposed to punishment or treatment in breach of
Article 3 of the Convention if he were returned to his country of origin. The applicant did not argue
that he had challenged that order in the domestic courts.
Having noted that the French authorities had carried out, at each stage of the proceedings, a
thorough and in-depth examination of the applicant’s situation, the Court reiterated that it was its
task to carry out its own up-to-date assessment of the risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 of the
Convention in the light of present-day circumstances.
In the first place, the Court noted, as had the Government, that the applicant had merely referred to
the CNDA’s decision in which his activism in Russia had been detailed, without providing any further
details or new information in support of his submissions concerning the alleged threats he would
currently face in Russia. While the CNDA had considered it established that the applicant had
campaigned for human rights in Russia, it had neither been argued nor established that he had
continued his activism since arriving in France in 2009.
Secondly, the Court noted that nearly 12 years had passed since the applicant had been granted
refugee status; he had not shown in what way the events which had justified the granting of refugee
status, specifically, his activism in the early 2000s, could expose him to a present-day, real risk of
being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the Russian authorities.
With regard to the political opinions that the Russian authorities might attribute to the applicant as a
result of his links with an activist blogger who had been assassinated in January 2020, the Court
considered that the applicant had not provided any information as to why the Russian authorities
would be aware of his links with that activist or the well-foundedness of his fears in that connection.
The Court also noted that the applicant’s name did not appear on any list of persons wanted by the
Russian authorities in connection with terrorist or extremist activities.
The Court pointed out that Russia had never requested the applicant’s extradition from France or a
copy of the judgment convicting him of condoning terrorism. Nor did the case file show that the
Russian authorities had initiated judicial proceedings in respect of the applicant for offences
committed on Russian soil or elsewhere. There was no evidence that the Russian authorities
currently showed any particular interest in the applicant.
Having carried out its up-to-date assessment, the Court considered that the applicant had not
demonstrated before it that there were serious, proven grounds to believe that if he were returned
to Russia he would run a real and present risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3
of the Convention. It concluded that enforcement of the removal measure in respect of the
applicant would not, in the circumstances of the present case, violate Article 3 of the Convention.
Article 8
The Court noted that a complaint could only be lodged before it after the domestic authorities had
been given the opportunity to rule on the complaint in issue and to prevent or bring to an end the
violations of the Convention. It reiterated that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies was an
indispensable part of the functioning of the system of protection established by the Convention.
In those circumstances, the Court considered, as argued by the Government, that the applicant
should have challenged, within two months, the Administrative Court’s decision of 1 July 2022
before the Administrative Court of Appeal and, subsequently, the Conseil d’État; the applicant had
not shown that he had done so.
The applicant could not therefore be said to have exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his
complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention in respect of the compulsory residence order,
and it followed that those complaints had to be declared inadmissible.
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
The Court considered that the measure indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court had to remain in force until the present judgment became final or until another related
decision was taken by the Court.
