FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF A.A. v. UKRAINE(Application no. 79750/16)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG15 December 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of A.A. v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, María Elósegui, Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 79750/16) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 December 2016 by a Tajikistani national, Mr A.A. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1994 and lives in the Netherlands and who was represented by Mr V. Melnychuk, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv and currently residing in Berlin;the decision to give notice of the complaints set out in paragraph 1 below to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;the decision to indicate an interim measure to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which was subsequently lifted;the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;the Government’s objection to the examination of the case by a Committee, which has not been upheld;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention that he faced a risk of ill-treatment if he were to be returned from Ukraine to Tajikistan and that his detention in the context of expulsion proceedings against him was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. The applicant also submitted complaints under Article 34 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and argued, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had no effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Expulsion proceedings2. In June 2016 the applicant arrived in Ukraine from Istanbul. As a citizen of Tajikistan he had the right to stay in Ukraine without a visa for ninety days, until 23 September 2016.3. On 15 July 2016 the immigration authorities, on the basis of intelligence information according to which the applicant had arrived in Ukraine in order to enter western Europe illegally, decided that the period of his stay in Ukraine had to end by 17 July 2016.4. On 21 July 2016 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Court ordered the applicant’s forcible removal from Ukraine.5. On 9 October 2017 the Kharkiv Circuit Administrative Court quashed the decision of 15 July 2016, finding that intelligence information could not serve as legal grounds for such decisions. Detention6. On 22 July 2016 the Migration Service decided to place the applicant in a centre for the temporary accommodation of foreigners and stateless persons whose status was irregular (“the detention centre”).7. On 19 September 2016 the prosecutor’s office informed the governor of the detention centre that under Article 183-7 of the Code of Administrative Justice (as worded from 18 June 2016), only courts had the power to authorise detention with a view to the execution of expulsion orders.

Outcome for Article 5: violation