Auszug aus EGMR - 53980/15

In the light of Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, 19 November 2015, was Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences against the applicant? If so, was the hearing in the applicant's case on 26 February 2015 at the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala held in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 53980/15

For instance, as to the temporary asylum procedure, was the assessment of the applicant's situation based on sufficiently clear and foreseeable criteria that are wide enough to deal properly with the substance on an issue under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention? Did/does any specific provision of the Refugees Act or other legislation provide that a pending application for temporary asylum and a pending judicial review in respect of a refusal to grant such asylum each have an "automatic suspensive effect" vis-à-vis a final expulsion order (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 31, ECHR 2013; Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015, §§ 24-27; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 61, 16 April 2015; and L.M. and Others, cited above, §§ 67 and 100)? Do the absence of such an effect, the narrow scope of assessment, and the temporary nature of the solution arising from a refusal to grant temporary asylum make this remedy ineffective/not appropriate to be used before lodging an application before the Court?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 53980/15

For instance, as to the temporary asylum procedure, was the assessment of the applicant's situation based on sufficiently clear and foreseeable criteria that are wide enough to deal properly with the substance on an issue under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention? Did/does any specific provision of the Refugees Act or other legislation provide that a pending application for temporary asylum and a pending judicial review in respect of a refusal to grant such asylum each have an "automatic suspensive effect" vis-à-vis a final expulsion order (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 31, ECHR 2013; Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015, §§ 24-27; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 61, 16 April 2015; and L.M. and Others, cited above, §§ 67 and 100)? Do the absence of such an effect, the narrow scope of assessment, and the temporary nature of the solution arising from a refusal to grant temporary asylum make this remedy ineffective/not appropriate to be used before lodging an application before the Court?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 53980/15

For instance, as to the temporary asylum procedure, was the assessment of the applicant's situation based on sufficiently clear and foreseeable criteria that are wide enough to deal properly with the substance on an issue under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention? Did/does any specific provision of the Refugees Act or other legislation provide that a pending application for temporary asylum and a pending judicial review in respect of a refusal to grant such asylum each have an "automatic suspensive effect" vis-à-vis a final expulsion order (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 31, ECHR 2013; Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015, §§ 24-27; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 61, 16 April 2015; and L.M. and Others, cited above, §§ 67 and 100)? Do the absence of such an effect, the narrow scope of assessment, and the temporary nature of the solution arising from a refusal to grant temporary asylum make this remedy ineffective/not appropriate to be used before lodging an application before the Court?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 53980/15

In the light of the applicant's claims, the documents which have been submitted, and the Court's case-law, would the applicant risk being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if his expulsion from Russia to Syria were enforced (see L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, 15 October 2015)?.