S.S. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 2236/16 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 488 (25 June 2019)

S.S. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 2236/16 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 488 (25 June 2019)

Russian authorities failed to adequately assess applicants' substantiated claims of real risk of ill-treatment upon removal, violating Article 3. Detention pending removal in two cases was unlawful and lacked procedural review, violating Article 5 §§ 1 and 4.

Citation
[2019] ECHR 488
Parties
Applicant: S. S.; Applicant: Z. K.; Applicant: M. A.; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications joined; complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1(f) and 4 declared admissible; violations found; partial just satisfaction awarded; remainder of claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extradition, Expulsion, Detention, Non Refoulement, Effective Remedies
Human Rights Law International Law Immigration Law Extradition Expulsion Detention Non Refoulement Effective Remedies

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. S.

Applicant

Z. K.

Applicant

M. A.

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of applicants to Uzbekistan or Tajikistan would violate Article 3 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether detention pending removal violated Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention
  3. 3 Whether there was a lack of effective remedies under Article 13

Ratio Decidendi

Russian authorities failed to adequately assess applicants' substantiated claims of real risk of ill-treatment upon removal, violating Article 3. Detention pending removal in two cases was unlawful and lacked procedural review, violating Article 5 §§ 1 and 4.

Court Disposition

Applications joined; complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1(f) and 4 declared admissible; violations found; partial just satisfaction awarded; remainder of claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicants not to be returned to their countries of origin; respondent State to pay specified amounts within three months; costs and expenses payable directly to applicants' representatives; default interest rate set at ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points; remainder of claims dismissed.