FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50063/07
by Andrey Yuryevich KULIKOVSKIY
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 November 2007,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrey Yuryevich Kulikovskiy, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre no.13. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.P. Bushchenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In December 2006 the applicant left Belarus for Ukraine. He alleges that he and his family received threats of violence on account of his involvement in opposition political activities.
From that time on the applicant has resided in Ukraine.
By a decision of 26 January 2007, the Belarusian Committee of State Control charged the applicant with giving deliberately misleading information in order to obtain a bank loan. On the same date an arrest warrant was issued by the Minsk City Prosecutor.
On 29 January 2007 the applicant was put on the list of wanted persons.
On 7 November 2007 the applicant was arrested by the police in Kyiv.
On 9 November 2007 the Solomyanskiy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s detention for forty days pending an official request for his extradition to Belarus and in order to effect his transfer to the law enforcement authorities of Belarus. The court ordered the applicant to be detained in Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 13 of Kyiv. The applicant’s appeal against this decision is apparently still pending.
On 19 November 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus requested the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine to extradite the applicant.
The applicant submitted that he had suffered from political persecution by the Belarusian authorities due to his involvement in the political opposition in that country. He has provided a copy of a letter by the President of the United Civil Party (a Belarusian opposition political force) to the effect that he had taken part in several demonstrations and other events organised by the Belarusian opposition, as well as financed publication of the opposition’s campaign literature.
On 20 November 2007, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Fifth Section of this Court invited the Government of Ukraine not to extradite the applicant to Belarus.
On 30 November 2007 the Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine informed the Deputy General Prosecutor of Belarus that the applicant’s extradition had been stayed pending this Court’s decision in the case. He also requested the Belarusian authorities to provide guarantees under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention in the event of the applicant’s extradition.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that if he was extradited there was a risk of him being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment by the Belarusian law-enforcement authorities with the aim of extracting a confession in the course of the criminal proceedings against him.
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful. He further complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he had no possibility to challenge his arrest and detention. The applicant finally complained of a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention because he was not entitled to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that if extradited to Belarus, he would be subjected to an unfair trial.
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was an absence of effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, namely, that it was not possible to challenge the decision on his extradition before the national courts.
THE LAW
By letters of 7 and 9 July 2008 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his application without providing any further explanations. By a subsequent letter of 6 August 2008 the applicant’s representative confirmed the applicant’s request. He did not specify any reasons either and stated that the applicant had taken this decision without any outside pressure.
The Court considers that the applicant no longer wishes 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy