FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60759/10
Mukhammadnur ABDULLAKHODZHAYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2010,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mukhammadnur Sayliboyevich Abdullakhodzhayev, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1982. The applicant lives in Moscow.
The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr A. Gaytayev, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Between October 2009 and October 2010 the applicant was kept in a Russian detention centre with a view to extradition to Uzbekistan on criminal charges of theft and fraud. After his release the applicant was ordered not to leave the town of residence without permission of the Russian authorities.
On 14 May 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office partly granted the Uzbek extradition request and ordered the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan in connection with the charges of theft. The applicant unsuccessfully instituted court proceedings to review the extradition order. The final decision was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 11 November 2010.
In the meantime, the Russian authorities dismissed the applicant’s applications for refugee status and temporary asylum.
The extradition order has not been enforced, on account of the indication made by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that, if extradited to Uzbekistan, he would run a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
The applicant argued under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the Russian courts and Prosecutor General’s Office had breached the presumption of innocence by assessing the charges brought against him in Uzbekistan under the Russian Criminal Code.
THE LAW
On 20 October 2010 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice.
By letter dated 20 May 2011 the Government’s observations on this application were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 22 July 2011.
By letter dated 15 September 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
On 18 October 2011 the applicant’s representative received the above‑mentioned letter. By fax of 9 December 2011 the applicant’s lawyer stated he was unaware of the applicant’s whereabouts. By a letter of 3 January 2012, the Court acknowledged receipt of this fax and informed the lawyer that the Court would decide whether the case should be struck out of the list of cases.
Subsequently, in reply to the Court’s request, on 23 March 2012 the Government provided the applicant’s current address and stated that he was under a legal undertaking not to leave the town of his residence.
By a letter of 29 March 2012, this information was sent to the applicant’s representative who was invited to submit observations on behalf of the applicant by 25 April 2012. No reply has been received.
The Court considers that, for the reasons mentioned above, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to lift the interim measure indicated to the Russian Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachLinos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy