issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 245 (2016)
07.07.2016
Judgments and decisions of 7 July 2016
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two judgments1 and 55 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are listed below;
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
R.V. v. France (application no. 78514/14)*
The applicant, R.V., is a Russian national from Chechnya. He was born in 1987 and lives in France.
The case concerned his return to his country of origin, the Russian Federation.
R.V. was the friend of T.I., member of a Chechen armed rebellion group called the “Boeviks”.
R.V. accommodated T.I. on his return to his village, providing him with supplies for his group. In
August 2005 T.I. was killed by the security forces, which seized the mobile phone T.I. had used to call
R.V. using a code name. In January 2006 R.V. was arrested and taken into custody in Grozny, where
he was interrogated for two weeks under torture. After being left half dead by the side of a road, he
was taken to hospital by passers-by. In May 2006 R.V. was again arrested and tortured, then
released after 10 days in return for a ransom. In November 2007 the henchmen of Ramzan Kadyrov,
current President of the Chechen Republic, abducted R.V. at his home and violently struck his wife
who was pregnant. She gave birth prematurely at the hospital, but the child died. To put an end to
her suffering, R.V. agreed to become an informer for the security services and was ultimately
released after payment of a new ransom. Taking the view that his safety was irremediably
compromised between the “Kadyrovski” who would not leave him in peace if he did not cooperate
and the “Boeviks” who would not hesitate to eliminate him if he did, he decided to flee to Poland,
where he was placed in the Dimbak refugee camp, intending to apply for asylum. However, R.V. was
forced to leave the camp because the “Kadyrovski” had infiltrated it to identify the Chechens who
had taken refuge there.
On arriving in France in January 2008, R.V. filed an application for asylum but it was dismissed by the
authorities. In December 2014 he was issued with an order to leave France and placed in a detention
centre. The Marseille Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and the decision was confirmed by
the Administrative Court of Appeal in May 2016.
In December 2014, on receiving a request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, the Court decided to indicate to the French Government not to return R.V. to the Russian
Federation for the duration of the proceedings before it.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, R.V. alleged that the enforcement of the order for his removal would
expose him to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five
judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
