SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 70133/01 by Ahtam Usman ESHMANOV against the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska , Mr E. Levits ,

Mr A. Kovler ,

Mr V. Zagrebelsky , judges ,

and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 3 May 2001 and registered on 7 June 2001,

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 Ahtam Usman Eshmanov, is an Uzbek national, born in 1958. He is represented before the Court by Mr Gavrilovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is an Uzbek national and a member of a banned opposition party - “ERK”. In 1995 he was allegedly detained and ill-treated in Uzbekistan. In 1996 he escaped from Uzbekistan and came to Russia, where he was later joined by his family.

It appears that in Russia the applicant was persecuted by the Uzbek Secret Service and informed by a Russian official that he might be extradited to Uzbekistan. On an unspecified date the applicant obtained passports and Russian citizenship certificates for him and his family.

On 24 August 2000 the applicant and his family came to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, where they obtained temporary residence until 19 April 2001.

On 18 September 2000 the applicant’s son was born in Skopje. The authorities refused to register the birth of the applicant’s son as the applicant and his wife had not submitted their birth certificates not older than six months as requested under the law of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On an unspecified date the baby was registered.

On 19 January 2001 the applicant sought political asylum. On 18 April 2001 his application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior on the ground that the applicant was a Russian national and not an asylum seeker in Russia, therefore, he could safely return to Russia where he had lived from 1996 to 2000. On 16 May 2001 his appeal was dismissed by the Second Instance Government Commission on similar grounds.

On 30 May 2001 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the decisions not to grant him status of refugee.

On 9 June 2001 the applicant and his family were resettled in the Netherlands with the assistance of the UNHCR.

On 22 June 2001 the applicant’s representative withdrew the applicant’s complaint to the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he and his family would be exposed to a risk of being killed or subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if expelled to Uzbekistan.

2. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the authorities had not immediately registered his new-born son.

THE LAW

On 25 July 2001 the applicant’s representative informed the Court of the applicant’s wish to withdraw the application. The letter stated, inter alia, the following:

“With reference to the letter of the UNHCR B.O.-Skopje of 9 July, confirming the resettlement of Mr Eshmanov and his family to a safe third country with the assistance of the UNHCR ...

...

We consider that the transfer of the applicant and his family to a safe third country [allowed] to avoid the danger of deportation or extradition ...

...

The registration [of the applicant’s son’s birth] ... constituted redress to certain degree, so the applicant’s right to respect for his family life is no longer threatened.

...”

Taking note of the applicant’s wish to withdraw the application, the Court concludes, in accordance with Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention, that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Taking into account that the applicant and his family have left the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and settled in the Netherlands the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President