FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 9764/03
by Siim ALTOSAAR
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 December 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrSir Nicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 21 March 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Siim Altosaar, is an Estonian national currently serving a prison sentence in Finland. He is represented before the Court by Mr Kari Silvennoinen, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen, Director in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 November 2000 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki convicted the applicant of an aggravated narcotics offence and sentenced him to imprisonment.
On 7 February 2001 the Directorate of Immigration (ulkomaalaisvirasto, utlänningsverket) ordered the applicant to be deported to Estonia on account of his sentence.
The applicant started to serve his prison sentence on 12 February 2001.
On 12 June 2001 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki upheld the applicant’s conviction and fixed his sentence at six years and ten months. This judgment is final.
On 4 September 2002 the Ministry of Justice decided that the applicant should be transferred to Estonia with a view to serving the rest of his sentence there. The Ministry relied on section 19, subsection 2 of Act no. 21/1987 – as amended by Act no. 236/2001 – on International Co-operation in the Enforcement of Certain Criminal Sanctions as well as to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (European Treaty Series no. 167; Finnish Treaty Series no. 42/2001). The applicant’s transfer was subject to the consent of the Estonian Government.
The Ministry noted that as a first-time offender it would be possible for the applicant to obtain a conditional release on 13 March 2004, whereas his full prison term would end on 13 August 2007. According to the Estonian authorities, the Estonian legislation would render it possible for him be released conditionally after having served two thirds of his sentence.
The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen) of Helsinki, arguing that enforcing the transfer order would violate Articles 3 and 5. Firstly, he risked being placed in the same prison as other members of the gang in whose activities he had been involved, and thereby being subjected to treatment proscribed by Article 3. In the criminal proceedings he had denounced two members of that gang. Secondly, the general prison conditions in Estonia were also worse.
Thirdly, the applicant argued that in Finland he would, as a first-time offender showing good behaviour in prison, be entitled to release on parole after having served only half of his sentence. In Estonia release on parole would come into question only when he had served two thirds of his sentence and even then on a more discretionary basis. By ordering that he should serve the rest of his sentence in Estonia the Finnish Ministry effectively prolonged his sentence beyond that which he would have served, had he been allowed to remain in Finland. This was said to be in violation of Article 5.
In its opinion to the Administrative Court the Ministry of Justice stated the following (as transcribed by the court):
“... Altosaar has been sentenced to six years and ten months’ imprisonment, of which he will, as a first-time offender, be serving three years and five months. According to the Department for Prison Administration of the Estonian Ministry of Justice as well as its international unit, it would be possible for Altosaar to obtain a conditional release in Estonia on having served two thirds of his sentence, that is to say four years, six months and 20 days. [His] possibility of being released conditionally in Estonia is therefore not significantly smaller than in Finland and the Estonian legislation does not in this respect differ significantly from our own. According to the Estonian authorities, the possibility for Altosaar to obtain a conditional release depends inter alia on factors which [he] himself may influence by his own deeds and behaviour. ... The conditions in which the sentence [would be] served in Estonia [would not] differ significantly from those prevailing in Finland. The prohibition of retroactive criminal law does not apply to the case. ...”
In a report dated 25 June 2001 the Deputy Governor of the Helsinki Central Prison took a position on the applicant’s placement, while noting that he was due to be released on 13 March 2004.
On 21 March 2003 the Administrative Court refused the applicant’s appeal, finding that, even though he was likely to serve a significantly longer prison sentence in Estonia, this in itself did not constitute a violation of Article 3. Nor were the general prison conditions in the receiving country such as to subject him to a risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3. The risk that he might face on account of having denounced members of the drug gang had not been substantiated. In any event, there was no reason to believe that the Estonian prison authorities would be unable to curb, to the extent possible, any such violence. At any rate, a certain risk existed in any prison system, especially as members of drug gangs were known to settle matters in a violent manner.
Nor did the Administrative Court find that Article 5 would be violated on account of the applicant’s transfer to Estonia as the sentence he would actually be serving there would not exceed the sentence imposed by the Finnish courts.
On 7 April 2003 the Finnish Ministry of Justice requested its Estonian counterpart to consent to the applicant’s transfer. On 10 June 2003 the Estonian Ministry of Justice consented to his transfer but the applicant appealed against this decision to the Administrative Court of Tallinn. According to the respondent Government, the relevant authorities in both countries have agreed to stay the transfer until the Administrative Court of Tallinn has rendered its decision.
According to the applicant, 106 Estonian prisoners were serving terms in Finnish prisons in 2002.
According to the respondent Government, “the applicant’s case is the first one of its kind in Finland”.
B.Relevant domestic and international law
Conditional release
Under Chapter 2, section 13 (580/2001) of the Enforcement of Sentences Act (laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta, lag om verkställighet av straff) a person sentenced to imprisonment may be conditionally released where he or she has served two thirds or, exceptionally, half of the sentence, in the latter case provided the prisoner has served no prison sentence during the three years preceding the offence.
Under section 13, subsection 1 of the Act the factors to be taken into account in the assessment of the possibility of releasing a prisoner conditionally include, inter alia, the nature of and the motives for the offence, the prisoner’s earlier life style and his behaviour in the prison, as well as the situation the prisoner would face upon being released.
Pursuant to Chapter 7, section 1, subsection 2 (580/2001) of the Act a prisoner may appeal to a district court inter alia against the postponement of a conditional release on his or her having served two thirds or half of the sentence (whichever is applicable under Chapter 2, section 13).
In its report of 2001 (no. 2001:6) the Committee on Prison Sentences noted the following (on p. 11):
“...In the 1990s [a conditional release] was almost never postponed. Following the instruction issued by the Department for Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice in 1995 (no. 9/011/95) postponements have been very rare and almost exclusively based on the prisoner’s consent. ...”
And further (on p. 245):
“[The proposals now made] would not change the existing legislation as regards the possibility of obtaining a conditional release on having served two thirds of a sentence. Nor would there be any change as regards those prisoners, who had served no prison term during the three years preceding their offence and who are [therefore] to be released on having served half of their sentence. ...”
The Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and the Additional Protocol thereto
The objectives of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (European Treaty Series no. 112; Finnish Treaty Series no. 13/1987; hereinafter “the Transfer Convention”), including its Additional Protocol (European Treaty Series no. 167; Finnish Treaty Series no. 42/2001), are to develop international co-operation in the field of criminal law and to further the ends of justice and the social rehabilitation of sentenced persons. According to the Preamble to the Transfer Convention, these objectives require that foreigners who are deprived of their liberty as a result of their commission of a criminal offence should be given the opportunity to serve their sentences within their own society.
The Transfer Convention entered into force for Finland on 1 May 1987 and the Additional Protocol on 1 August 2001. Estonia ratified the Transfer Convention and the Additional Protocol on 28 April 1997 and 27 October 1999, respectively.
Article 3 § 1 of the Transfer Convention enables the transfer of a sentenced person from “the sentencing State” to “the administering State” provided inter alia that the person in question is a national of the administering State; that he or she (or in some instances a legal representative) consents to the transfer; that the acts or omissions on account of which the sentence has been imposed constitute a criminal offence according to the law of the administering State or would constitute a criminal offence if committed on its territory; and provided that the sentencing and administering States both agree to the transfer.
Article 9 (“Effect of transfer for administering State”) reads as follows:
“1The competent authorities of the administering State shall:
acontinue the enforcement of the sentence immediately or through a court or administrative order, under the conditions set out in Article 10, or
bconvert the sentence, through a judicial or administrative procedure, into a decision of that State, thereby substituting for the sanction imposed in the sentencing State a sanction prescribed by the law of the administering State for the same offence, under the conditions set out in Article 11.
2The administering State, if requested, shall inform the sentencing State before the transfer of the sentenced person as to which of these procedures it will follow.
3The enforcement of the sentence shall be governed by the law of the administering State and that State alone shall be competent to take all appropriate decisions. ...”
Article 10 (“Continued enforcement”) provides the following:
“1In the case of continued enforcement, the administering State shall be bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the sentencing State.
2If, however, this sentence is by its nature or duration incompatible with the law of the administering State, or its law so requires, that State may, by a court or administrative order, adapt the sanction to the punishment or measure prescribed by its own law for a similar offence. As to its nature, the punishment or measure shall, as far as possible, correspond with that imposed by the sentence to be enforced. It shall not aggravate, by its nature or duration, the sanction imposed in the sentencing State, nor exceed the maximum prescribed by the law of the administering State.”
Article 11 (“Conversion of sentence”) reads as follows:
“1In the case of conversion of sentence, the procedures provided for by the law of the administering State apply. When converting the sentence, the competent authority:
ashall be bound by the findings as to the facts insofar as they appear explicitly or implicitly from the judgment imposed in the sentencing State;
bmay not convert a sanction involving deprivation of liberty to a pecuniary sanction;
cshall deduct the full period of deprivation of liberty served by the sentenced person; and
dshall not aggravate the penal position of the sentenced person, and shall not be bound by any minimum which the law of the administering State may provide for the offence or offences committed.
2If the conversion procedure takes place after the transfer of the sentenced person, the administering State shall keep that person in custody or otherwise ensure his presence in the administering State pending the outcome of that procedure. “
Article 3 § 1 of the Additional Protocol provides as follows:
“Upon being requested by the sentencing State, the administering State may, subject to the provisions of this Article, agree to the transfer of a sentenced person without the consent of that person, where the sentence passed on the latter, or an administrative decision consequential to that sentence, includes an expulsion or deportation order or any other measure as the result of which that person will no longer be allowed to remain in the territory of the sentencing State once he or she is released from prison.”
In the Government Bill proposing to incorporate the Additional Protocol into Finnish law (HE 1/2001, p. 19) it is stated that
“[w]hen considering a request for transfer, the Ministry of Justice should, in particular, pay attention to conditions in prisons of the requested state of enforcement. The decision would also be affected, inter alia, by the most likely date on which the sentenced person would be conditionally released in accordance with the laws of the state of enforcement. Should the possibilities for conditional release in the state of enforcement be considerably weaker than in Finland, it might be unreasonable to request the transfer of the sentenced person.”
The Law Committee of the Finnish Parliament, having discussed the Government Bill, observed in its report (LaVM 2/2001) that
“...[t]he prison conditions in the receiving state should be adequate to ensure that the prisoner will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As a minimum, the service of the prison sentence should not, as to its conditions or duration, significantly differ from the service of the sentence in Finland. Thus, transfer should also be refrained from where the legislation of the receiving state concerning enforcement of sentences significantly differs from the Finnish legislation, for example in respect of the possibility for conditional release. ...”
In a survey of the conditions for transferring, among others, Estonian prisoners to their native country for serving the rest of their sentences (report of 15 January 2002) a working group appointed by the Ministry of Justice concluded inter alia as follows:
“The possibility of obtaining a conditional release in Estonia is subject to a discretionary examination and is based on the general Act on the enforcement of prison sentences, the general part of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Act. According to this legislation, the Prison Governor may, using his discretion, propose to a court that a prisoner should be granted conditional release. Factors affecting whether or not such a proposal is made are the realisation of the plan for the enforcement of the sentence which is drawn up individually for each prisoner at the beginning of his or her term; the opinions of the social department and the security department of the prison; and the opinion of the prison psychologist. Should the Prison Governor’s decision be negative, it is possible to appeal to an administrative court, the Ministry of Justice or the Chancellor of Justice.
The Prison Governor makes a proposal [for a conditional release] only in such cases where he or she considers that the conditions [for such a release] have been met. The courts accept about 60-70% of the prison governors’ proposals. If the court dismisses a proposal, a fresh proposal may be made in six months at the earliest. An estimated 15% of the prisoners are granted conditional release.
Considering the working group’s mandate, it is noteworthy that when a prisoner has been convicted of an intentional crime and sentenced to a term exceeding three years, a conditional release may be considered only when two thirds of the sentence has been served.
The possibility of obtaining a conditional release is dependent on a number of discretionary considerations and it is therefore not easy to predict a prison governor’s proposal or a court’s decision. The conditions for a conditional release are known. The assessment of whether those criteria have been met are nevertheless based on an examination in casu which is influenced by the opinions on the prisoner as expressed by different persons. ...”
The working group concluded inter alia as follows:
“A majority of the [Estonian] prisoners who would be concerned [by a transfer] have been sentenced to rather significant prison terms for an aggravated narcotics offence. As has been stated earlier, their conditional release in Estonia would be considered only when they have served two thirds of their sentence. The Law Committee [of Parliament] has opined that [Finland] should refrain from transferring a prisoner to a country whose legislation on the enforcement of sentences differs significantly from the Finnish legislation, for example in respect of the possibility of being granted a conditional release. In the opinion of the working group transfers should take place only in cases where the prisoners, while still in Finland, would be conditionally released only on having served two thirds of their sentence. The crux of the matter is that there are hardly any such prisoners among those of foreign nationality. The Estonian prisoners are mostly so-called first-timers from the prison administration’s point of view, that is to say they have not served a prison sentence or been incarcerated during the three years preceding their offence. ...”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, on the grounds relied on in the domestic proceedings, that his transfer to his native Estonia with a view to his serving the rest of his sentence there would be in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicant has first complained that his transfer with a view to his serving the rest of his sentence in Estonia would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
It is the Court’s well-established practice that Contracting States have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. However, extradition by a Contracting State – or any other type of removal of a foreign national – may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he is to be removed. A mere possibility of ill-treatment is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of Article 3 (see, for example, Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215).
The Court finds that the evidence submitted does not sufficiently substantiate this grievance so as to disclose an appearance of a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 on the applicant’s transfer to an Estonian prison. The Court would add that he would be free to file an application against Estonia should he consider his treatment there to be in violation of that or any other provision of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2.The applicant has complained that his transfer with a view to his serving the rest of his sentence in Estonia would also be in violation of Article 5 which reads in its relevant parts as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; ...”
The applicant’s transfer to Estonia with a view to continue serving his sentence might also raise an issue under Article 6 of the Convention, the first paragraph of which reads as follows:
“In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
The respondent Government consider the application manifestly ill-founded. The original sentence of 12 June 2001 was imposed on the applicant in conformity with the requirements of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and was not in any way prolonged by the decision to transfer him to Estonia. As that decision entailed no new deprivation of his liberty neither Article 5 nor Article 6 is applicable in that respect. Moreover, Article 5 did not apply to the administrative implementation of that sentence, as can be seen in cases of early or conditional release from a determinate term of imprisonment (see, for example, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 87, ECHR 2002‑IV).
The respondent Government furthermore consider that the present case differs from the case of Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, judgment of 9 October 2003) which concerned disciplinary offences committed within the prison, resulting in the imposition of additional days of detention as a result of which the applicants remained in prison beyond the date on which they would have otherwise been released. Whereas Article 6 was found to apply in that case, the present one involved no new criminal act or any prolongation of the original sentence imposed.
Were the Court to reach another conclusion as to the applicability of Article 5 or 6, the respondent Government recall that the applicant’s sentence was passed in conformity with a normal criminal law procedure entailing the guarantees of a fair trial and access to court in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Moreover, the Ministry’s transfer decision was based on existing domestic law which sets conditions for prisoner transfers which are even stricter than those set forth in the Transfer Convention itself. The applicant was able to challenge his impending transfer before the Administrative Court which fulfilled the requirement of an independent and impartial court under Article 6 of the Convention and found that Article 5 did not prevent the intended transfer. He was assisted by counsel at all stages of the transfer proceedings. The transfer decision served the objectives set forth in the Preambles to the Transfer Convention. In accordance with the objective of social rehabilitation of a sentenced person, it was deemed appropriate to have the applicant transferred to Estonia where his family live, whereas he had no ties to Finland. Considering that his sentence triggered a deportation order, he would in any case have been transferred to Estonia on his release from a Finnish prison.
The respondent Government confirm that under Finnish law and subject to the authorities’ discretion, a prisoner may be conditionally released, in the same way as in Estonia. Such a release is always subject to an assessment of, inter alia, the prisoner’s behaviour in prison and his or her life situation after release. In practice, the decision on suspending conditional release is not made until closer to the date on which the sentenced person could be released. Thus, there is no absolute certainty as to the date on which the applicant would be conditionally released until a concrete decision to that effect has been made.
The respondent Government also point out that prisoners normally serve two thirds of their sentences, in the same way as in Estonia, although first-time prisoners in Finland are usually released after they have served half of the sentence. Thus the situation in Estonia concerning enforcement of sentences does not significantly differ from the Finnish legislation in respect of the possibility for conditional release. Despite the authorities’ discretionary powers it is very rare in Finland to suspend conditional release against the sentenced person’s own will.
After his transfer to Estonia, the decision on the applicant’s conditional release will, under the applicable Estonian law, be made by a court of law. Due to the fact that the relevant provisions are relatively recent, there is no established case law in Estonia so far. According to information provided by the Estonian authorities, 25% of the prisoners released in 2002 were released conditionally. The proceedings for deciding the remaining length of the applicant’s sentence cannot be commenced until he has been transferred, his presence being required. Whereas one cannot assume that his actual sentence will automatically be longer, the assessment of his case is made more difficult by the fact that at the time when he committed his offence stricter legal provisions were in force in Estonia. The respondent Government is not in a position to assess whether this could affect the outcome of the applicant’s case. In any case, the Court should not decide on the admissibility of the application until all Estonian court remedies have been exhausted.
The respondent Government finally note that although national criminal law systems and systems of enforcement of sentences have gradually been harmonised, there remain differences in the length of prison sentences and on conditional release in the European states. Neither the Additional Protocol to the Transfer Convention nor its Explanatory Report make any reference to those differences. Their operation is based on trust in the legal system of another European state which is also a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights. States tend to increase co-operation on the basis of such reciprocal trust, which the Court has found to be in the interests of the persons subject to the measures in question (see Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240). Should the transfer of sentenced persons from a European state to another require that both states apply similar provisions of law, the objectives of the Transfer Convention would be frustrated and transfers would hardly ever be possible.
In respect of his grievance under Article 5, the applicant notes that the date of his conditional release, were he to remain in Finland, is not in dispute. When a Finnish court sentences a first-time offender to imprisonment it will, when fixing the prison term, take into account the practice that he or she will be conditionally released on having served half of the sentence. He refers inter alia to the report signed by the Deputy Prison Governor in June 2001 which confirms that his release is due on 13 March 2004, that is to say on his having served half of his sentence.
The general objectives sought to be achieved by the Transfer Convention and the Additional Protocol must be balanced against the need to protect the individual’s rights and freedoms under the Human Rights Convention which, in particular, provides protection against arbitrary interference by the State with his or her right to liberty (see, for example, Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111). Above all, the rights guaranteed in the Human Rights Convention must be “practical and effective”. The aims of the Transfer Convention and the Additional Protocol can hardly be served by prolonging the applicant’s sentence possibly by as much as three years and five months. At any rate such a prolongation cannot serve his social rehabilitation or family life. The Transfer Convention and its Additional Protocol should be applied for the benefit of the prisoner. Their objective of “socially rehabilitating” prisoners would, in the applicant’s case, more likely be achieved were he to be conditionally released in Finland in March 2004, as opposed to in Estonia, where he would be released at the earliest in 2006.
The applicant notes the Government’s failure to explain why his release “would be easier to prepare in Estonia than in Finland”. If he were to be released from the Finnish prison in March 2004 he would most likely be joining his family in Estonia within hours.
Moreover, the Additional Protocol which renders the applicant’s transfer to Estonia possible without his consent entered into force with regard to Finland only on 1 August 2001, that is to say after his sentence had acquired legal force.
The applicant further points to the 2002 survey of a working group appointed by the Finnish Ministry of Justice which found that in Estonia only an estimated 15% of the prisoners are granted conditional release. Accordingly, there is only a 15% likelihood that the applicant would be conditionally released in Estonia. If not, he will be released on 13 August 2007.
The applicant emphasises that in Stafford v. United Kingdom (cited above, § 64) the Court found that “it may be necessary to look beyond the appearances and the language used and concentrate on the realities of the situation”. Moreover, in Weeks v. United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 23, § 42) the Court held that there must be “a sufficient causal connection between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty at issue”. In the applicant’s case no such connection would exist between the sentence imposed on him in the Finnish criminal proceedings and the additional deprivation of his liberty resulting from the Finnish administrative decision to transfer him to Estonia.
The de facto prolongation of the applicant’s sentence as a result of his transfer to Estonia would therefore amount to an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty which would not be in accordance with the general spirit of the Convention and violate Article 5.
The applicant submits that his transfer to Estonia would also be in violation of Article 6 in the absence of a causal connection between the sentence imposed on him by the Finnish courts and the additional deprivation of his liberty which he would be subjected to in his native country. He would have no means of obtaining a fair trial in accordance with Article 6, whereby he could obtain a genuine and effective examination of this additional deprivation of his liberty.
Moreover, the applicant’s rights under Article 6 have been violated already in Finland as the Administrative Court, in authorising his transfer, relied on unclear and conflicting reasoning. It stated, without sufficient explanation, that Article 5 did not prevent his transfer. Nor did the Administrative Court hear the applicant on the Article 5 issue.
The respondent Government cannot escape responsibility by stating that it cannot know what the applicant’s sentence in Estonia will be once he has been transferred. Under the Convention the mere risk that his sentence will be radically extended is enough to raise an issue. He therefore objects to the Government’s request that the case in Strasbourg be adjourned awaiting the outcome of the Estonian proceedings.
Finally, the applicant points out that in prisoners in Estonia are allowed two annual meetings with their families, whereas in Finland such meetings are allowed once a month. Moreover, as prisoners in Estonia are not allowed to work the application of the Transfer Convention would not achieve its purpose, namely to allow for the prisoner’s re-integration into society. In Finland the applicant is able to pursue studies and have remunerated work, which enables him to support his family.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file as it stands at present, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary to obtain further written observations from the parties and to invite the Government of Estonia to submit such observations (Rule 44 §§ 1 (a) and 2 (a) of the Rules of Court).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Adjourns the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the de facto prolongation of his sentence as a result of his transfer to Estonia would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty the grounds for which he could not have reviewed in a fair trial;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Françoise Elens-PassosNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy