CHENTIEV v. SLOVAKIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicant, Mr Anzor Chadidovich Chentiev, is a Russian national of Chechen ethnic origin. He was born in 1983 and is detained in Leopoldov prison. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicant arrived illegally in Slovakia from Ukraine in January 2006. He unsuccessfully applied for asylum. The Slovak authorities found that his extradition to the Russian Federation for the purpose of his criminal prosecution there was admissible. 4. On 14 September 2010 the Court declared inadmissible application no. 21022/08 in which the applicant complained that his extradition to the Russian Federation would amount to a breach of his rights under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 6. 5. On 12 November 2010 the applicant lodged a new application with the same subject-matter as application no. 21022/08 while relying on additional facts. In parallel the applicant filed a fresh asylum request with reference to those facts. 6. On 15 December 2010 the President of the Fourth Section to which the case had been allocated decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not been extradited to the Russian Federation. On 23 November 2010 the Court (Fourth Section) decided to prolong under further notice that interim measure. 7. On 21 February 2012 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government of Slovakia and to invite the Government to submit written observations on the complaints that the applicant’s extradition to the Russian Federation would amount to a breach of his rights under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. The Chamber declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. 8. As regards the domestic proceedings on his fresh asylum request, the Bratislava Regional Court, in a judgment of 21 November 2013, dismissed the applicant’s action against the decision given by the Ministry of the Interior. 9. The applicant filed an appeal through his legal representative. 10. In two letters of 6 February 2014 the applicant informed the Regional Court that he had terminated the authority of his representative and withdrawn his action for review of the administrative decisions on his asylum request. 11. On 13 March 2014 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings on that ground without addressing the merits of the case. 12. In the meantime, on 11 February 2014, the applicant informed the Court that he no longer wished to pursue the application and that he had petitioned for the domestic proceedings to be discontinued. The respondent Government confirmed that information. 13. On 18 March 2014 the Court reconsidered the application in the light of the information submitted by the parties and decided to lift the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court previously indicated in respect of the applicant. 14. In a letter which was delivered on 1 April 2014 the applicant informed the Court that he and his family were threatened by Russian authorities in order to make him return to Russia voluntarily. The applicant maintained that he wished to pursue the application.