CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 33235/12 Zdravko TESKERA against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Ann Power-Forde, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Helena Jäderblom, judges and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2012, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the submissions of the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Zdravko Teskera, is a Montenegrin national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Tivat. He was represented before the Court by Mr   R. Sevšek, a lawyer practising in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Pintar Gosenca, State Attorney. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 17 December 2009 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention with a view to his extradition to Uruguay, where charges were pending against him for drug trafficking. On 16 February 2010 the Koper District Court established that the conditions for extradition were met. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed and on 1 December 2010 the Slovenian Minister of Justice granted his extradition, concluding that although the prison conditions in Uruguay, and in particular in the “Libertad” Prison where the applicant was to be placed, did not meet the relevant international standards, they nevertheless did not reach the threshold of severity sufficient to trigger the application of Article   3 of the Convention in a case of extradition. The applicant successfully appealed against this decision on the ground that he had not been given the opportunity to be heard on all issues relevant to the proceedings. After having rectified this procedural error, on 26   August 2011 another decision was rendered by the Minister of Justice allowing the applicant’s extradition to Uruguay. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 29 February 2012 the Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on the ground that he had failed to demonstrate a concrete risk of inhuman treatment or torture which existed for him personally in the event of his extradition to Uruguay. As regards the applicant’s complaint that the Uruguayan criminal legislation provided no limitation on the length of pre ‑ trial detention and therefore did not satisfy the basic standards of fair trial, the court held that the absence of provisions on a maximum length of detention did not entail an automatic violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was dismissed and so was, on 5   June 2012, his constitutional appeal. The application to the Court was introduced on 4 June 2012. On 7 June 2012 the President of the Section decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Uruguay until further notice. It was also decided to grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Subsequently, the applicant was released from detention due to the expiration of the legal time-limit and he returned to Montenegro. On 3 December 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that in the event of his extradition to Uruguay, he faced the risk of being detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. In particular, he invoked the inadequate facilities, lack of proper sanitation and lack of health-care services . He further complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that his extradition would expose him to a flagrant denial of justice, as the Uruguayan criminal procedure permitted unlimited pre-trial detention and was of purely inquisitorial nature. THE LAW The applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. The interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court therefore ends. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President