Communicated on 11 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 54578/15 Gabriel STATI and Aurel MARINESCU against Ukraine lodged on 16 April 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Gabriel Stati and Mr Aurel Marinescu, are Moldovan nationals, who were born in 1976 and 1970 respectively and live in Chişinău . Mr Gabriel Stati is also a national of Romania. They are represented before the Court by Mr V. Gribincea and Mr V. Nagacevschi , lawyers practising in Chişinău .

The relevant background facts are set out in Stati and Marinescu v. Moldova (( dec. ), no. 19828/09, 23 March 2010).

At the relevant time the first applicant was a prominent businessman and the second applicant was an employee of the first applicant ’ s family ’ s group of companies.

On 7 April 2009 post-election clashes and storming of government buildings took place in Moldova. The authorities then in power accused the applicants of being implicated in the instigation of that violence.

On 8 April 2009 the applicants entered Ukraine by car. The authorities of the Republic of Moldova requested their extradition. On the same day they were arrested by the Ukrainian authorities while trying to fly out of the Odessa airport to Romania.

On 13 April 2009 the applicants requested political asylum in Ukraine on the grounds that they were victims of political repression in Moldova and that in case of extradition they would be exposed to the risk of assassination.

On 15 April 2009 the applicants were extradited to Moldova. They allege that their request for asylum had not been examined by the Ukrainian authorities and that they had no chance to challenge the extradition decision.

There is no indication in the case file that the applicants were exposed to any ill-treatment on their return to Moldova.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to properly examine their claims of risk of ill-treatment in Moldova.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Before deciding on the applicants ’ extradition, did the authorities examine the applicants ’ claim that they would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned to the Republic of Moldova? Did the authorities of the respondent State comply with their obligations under Article 3 in that respect (see, for example, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-27, 23 March 2016, and M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine , no. 17189/11, §§ 113-30, 11 June 2020)?