Last Updated on May 15, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 26 October 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 31592/18
M.C.
against Turkey
lodged on 4 July 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the threatened extradition of the applicant, a Georgian national, to Russia, allegedly in disregard of his poor health condition and the real risk of death or ill-treatment that such extradition would entail. The applicant also complains of the alleged unlawfulness of his detention for extradition purposes and of the conduct and outcome of the extradition procedure, none of which complied with the requirements of the European Convention on Extradition. The applicant was first detained on 23 May 2017 for the purpose of his extradition to Russia, and he remained in detention at the Maltepe Prison until 22 June 2018, apart from a brief period of two days in which he was released (2-4 July 2017). On 22 June 2018 he was hospitalised due to his health problems and, according to the latest information in the case file, he is receiving treatment at the Marmara University Hospital in Pendik due to his critical health condition.
On 11 January, 21 February and 3 July 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s requests for an interim measure to suspend his extradition to Russia. It appears that the Constitutional Court’s examination on the merits of the case is still pending (application no. 2018/294).
On 26 January and 1 March 2018 the Court decided not to grant the applicant’s requests for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent his extradition to Russia, for it found both requests unsubstantiated.
Following his admission to the hospital, on 4 July 2018 the applicant lodged a new request with the Court for an interim measure to stop his extradition to Russia, having particular regard to his critical health condition. On 7 August 2018 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited until further notice. The Court further decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Is the applicant currently under a threat of extradition to Russia? Has a final extradition order been issued by the Ministry of Justice in the applicant’s respect?
2.a. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in connection with his present complaints?
2.b. Is the examination of the applicant’s case (no. 2018/294) still pending before the Constitutional Court?
3. Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention in the event of his extradition to Russia, having particular regard to his poor health condition and his allegations of risk of persecution in that country?
The applicant is requested to provide detailed information and, where possible, documentary evidence to corroborate his claims that he would face a real risk of persecution if extradited to Russia.
4.a. Did the national administrative and judicial authorities, including the Constitutional Court, fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment if removed to Russia, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 101, 11 October 2011; Babajanov v. Turkey, no. 49867/08, §§ 41-49, 10 May 2016; and F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016)?
4.b. When granting the request for the applicant’s extradition to Russia, did the Tenth Division of the Bakırköy Assize Court and the Court of Cassation examine whether;
(i) the conditions laid down by domestic and international law for extradition are satisfied, having particular regard to the applicant’s allegation that the extradition request was not supported with the necessary documents required under the European Convention on Extradition and that the offence with which he was charged had become time-barred under Turkish law?
(ii) the terms of the diplomatic assurance provided by the Russian authorities were sufficient to remove any risk of treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?
5. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention within the context of the extradition proceedings? In particular;
(a) Had the applicant’s detention been in conformity with the requirements of the relevant domestic and international law?
(b) Had the applicant’s detention been justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? Were the extradition proceedings conducted in a diligent manner, particularly after the Court of Cassation’s final decision approving the extradition?
The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to their replies, and to provide the latest information on the applicant’s state of health. In particular, the Government are requested to submit a copy of the extradition file, together with information on the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the extradition procedure, and the applicant is requested to submit a copy of the appeal request that he had lodged with the Court of Cassation (against the Bakırköy Assize Court’s decision of 16 August 2017, no. 2017/589) and of the interim measure requests that he had lodged with the Constitutional Court.
Leave a Reply