ECtHR - M.V and M.T. v France, Application No. 17897/09

Facts:

The applicants, Mr M.V and Ms M.T, are Russian nationals who had accommodated, on several occasions, a relative who had previously participated in the Chechen rebellion. The applicants faced harassment and maltreatment by affiliates of the President of the Chechen Republic following on from the relative’s visits. Fearing for their safety, the applicants left Russia and applied for asylum in France in 2008. Upon registration of the applicants’ fingerprints, which were found to be unidentifiable, the Maine-et-Loire prefecture rejected their asylum application on grounds of fraud and sent their asylum applications to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (“the OFPRA”) in accordance with the fast-track procedure. On 25 February 2009 the OFPRA gave two decisions rejecting their applications, both of which were subsequently upheld by the National Asylum Tribunal, on the ground that their explanation was not sufficiently detailed.

The applicants subsequently made two unsuccessful requests to have their applications reviewed. Two removal orders were made against the applicants, who unsuccessfully challenged them. In 2009 the Court, having received a request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the French Government that the applicants should not be expelled to Russia for the duration of the proceedings. The applicants alleged that the implementation of the decision of the French authorities deporting them to Russia would expose them to the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3, they submitted, moreover, that they did not have an effective remedy due to the application being processed under the fast-track procedure.

Decision & reasoning:

In line with its judgment in I. v Sweden the ECtHR submitted that despite reports identifyingserious violations of human rights in Chechnya, the situation, as such, does not imply that every removal to Russia will constitute a violation of Article 3. It considered that the existence of serious reasons to believe that the Russian authorities might question and detain the applicants upon their return shall be demonstrated in order to determine a possible violation of Article 3 in the event of the Applicant’s removal. The ECtHR noted the doubts of the French authorities concerning the authenticity of supporting documents and the inconsistencies in the applicants’ story. However, according to the ECtHR, the French authority’s decision to dismiss the applications was insufficientlymotivated. Thus, the ECtHR noted that in light of the applicants’ detailed accounts and international documentation available which supported the applicants’ testimonies, the Court held that upon their return they would run a real risk of inhumane treatment by the Russian authorities contrary to Article 3.

Regarding the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3, the Court acknowledged that the fast track procedure limited the period of time in which the applicants had to finalise an application in French. The Court further noted that the fast track procedure was launched only after the third unsuccessful successive attempt to take the applicants’ fingerprints. According to the Court the fast track procedure seemed to be justified in light of the application of the French law.

In addition, the Court noted that the applicants, upon notification of a removal order, could have lodged an appeal with suspensive effect to the administrative court.

To conclude, the Court held that removal to Russia would not amount to a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3.

Outcome:

Violation of Article 3 in the event of the applicants deportation to Russia;

No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3;

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It further awarded them 7,500 euros (EUR) jointly in respect of costs and expenses.

Other sources:

Human Rights and Democracy : The 2012 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report – Russia, 15 April 2013

U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Russia, 19 April 2013