B.U. v. RUSSIA - 59609/17 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 67 (22 January 2019)

B.U. v. RUSSIA - 59609/17 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 67 (22 January 2019)

Removal of applicants to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3; detention pending expulsion was unreasonably long and lacked proper judicial scrutiny, violating Article 5 § 1; appeal proceedings were not conducted with sufficient speed and lacked effective procedure, violating Article 5 § 4.

Citation
[2019] ECHR 67
Parties
Applicant: B. U.; Applicant: A. S.; Applicant: I. N.; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
22 January 2019
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications joined; complaints under Articles 3 and 5 declared admissible; violations found under Articles 3, 5 § 1, and 5 § 4; just satisfaction awarded; remainder of claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extradition, Expulsion, Detention, Asylum, Non Refoulement, Right to Liberty, Speediness of Judicial Review
Human Rights Law International Law Immigration Law Extradition Expulsion Detention Asylum Non Refoulement +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. U.

Applicant

A. S.

Applicant

I. N.

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of applicants to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan would violate Article 3 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether detention pending expulsion violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
  3. 3 Whether appeal proceedings and lack of effective procedure violated Article 5 § 4 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Removal of applicants to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3; detention pending expulsion was unreasonably long and lacked proper judicial scrutiny, violating Article 5 § 1; appeal proceedings were not conducted with sufficient speed and lacked effective procedure, violating Article 5 § 4.

Court Disposition

Applications joined; complaints under Articles 3 and 5 declared admissible; violations found under Articles 3, 5 § 1, and 5 § 4; just satisfaction awarded; remainder of claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicants not to be removed to their countries of origin for duration of proceedings; finding of violation of Article 3 constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage; respondent State to pay each applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage under Article 5; respondent State to pay costs and...