FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 55085/16 U.H. against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Faris Vehabović, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Carlo Ranzoni, judges,

and Anne-Marie Dougin , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2016,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant is an Uzbek national who was born in 1986. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Bogdan, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.

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

3. On 7 September 2016 the Deputy Prosecutor General ordered the applicant ’ s extradition to Uzbekistan.

4. On 22 September 2016 the Court applied Rule 39 and indicated to the Government that they should not extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

5. On 5 October 2016 the Dnipro Regional Court of Appeal reversed the extradition order of 7 September 2016 after finding that it had not complied with domestic procedural rules.

6. On 13 October 2016 the domestic asylum authorities rejected an application for asylum from the applicant. The decision was open to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

7. The applicant complained that his extradition to Uzbekistan would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He further complained that Article 13 of the Convention had been breached, arguing in particular, that he had not had proper access to the domestic asylum procedure.

THE LAW

8. As regards the complaint under Article 3, the Court reiterates that in cases where applicants have faced expulsion or extradition, they could not claim to be the “victim” of a measure which was not enforceable (see Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005). It has confirmed the same stance in cases where the execution of a deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect, and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia , no. 656/06, § 59, 11 October 2007; Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011; Rakhmonov v. Russia , 50031/11, §§ 34-35, 16 October 2012; Budrevich v. the Czech Republic , no. 65303/10, §§ 66-70, 17 October 2013 and Abdi Ahmed and Others v. Malta (dec.), no. 43985/13, §§ 80 and 81, 16 September 2014 ).

9. In the present case, the order to extradite the applicant has been reversed by the domestic court and there is no enforceable decision on which to base his extradition. If another extradition order is issued in the future, the applicant will be entitled to challenge it in the domestic courts, a procedure which has suspensive effect. He will also be entitled to raise his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan and submit a new application to the Court if necessary. However, as the case stands at the present time the risk referred to by the applicant is not imminent and, accordingly, he may not claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violation of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

10. The Court further considers that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 22893/05, § 82, 27 May 2008). Furthermore, he has not presented any specific arguments as to how the domestic authorities failed to ensure his right to an effective remedy in respect of his allegation under Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

11. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 February 2017 .

Anne-Marie Dougin Faris Vehabović              Acting Deputy Registrar President