CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8B7697D0 { width:20.77pt; display:inline-block } .s4024CB39 { width:139.08pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 25166/18 S.D. against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   September 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 May 2018, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr S.D., is an Uzbek national, who was born in 1969. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Mr Bakhrom Khamroyev, residing in Moscow. 2.     In 2015 the applicant was charged in Uzbekistan with participation in a religious extremist organisation ‘Jihadists’. Subsequently he was further charged with participation in a terrorist organisation ‘Islamic Movements of Turkestan’, recruiting new members to that organization and facilitating travel of the recruits to the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 3.     After the applicant’s arrest in Russia his extradition to Uzbekistan was authorised by the decision of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation on 25 October 2016. 4.     On 29 May 2018 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the above authorisation and dismissed the applicant’s claims under Article 3 of the Convention with reference to international reports on the situation in Uzbekistan. The applicant was represented in these proceedings by Mr   T.   Shirokov. 5.     On 1 June 2018 the applicant was released from detention due to unspecified reasons. 6.     On 30 May 2018 Mr Khamroyev in the applicant’s name submitted to the Court a request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In the request he stated that in case of his removal to Uzbekistan the applicant would run the risk of ill-treatment in that country. The request was accompanied by an authority form of 29 May 2018 issued to Mr   Khamroyev. The applicant’s signature in legible Cyrillic letters read ‘Dallabaev’ ( Даллабаев ). 7.     On 31 May 2018 the applicant’s request was granted by the Court and his removal to Uzbekistan stayed for the duration of the proceedings. The applicant’s case was granted priority (Rule 41) and confidentiality (Rule 33) and the applicant was granted anonymity (Rule   47   §   4). 8.     On the same day the Registry sent a letter to Mr Khamroyev informing him that a completed application form with relevant documents should reach the Court by 2 July 2018. 9.     Mr Khamroyev had neither submitted an application form, nor replied to the Court’s letter. 10.     Ten months later on 5 April 2019 the Registry sent a registered letter, received by Mr Khamroyev on 19 April 2019, reminding him that no application form had reached the Court and setting the new time-limit of 31   May 2019. His attention was drawn to the fact that if no duly completed and signed application form would arrive by the above date the Court might decide to strike the application out of the list of cases. 11.     By the letter of 13 April 2019, which reached the Court on 16 April 2019, Mr Khamroyev submitted a repeated request for an interim measure. The request was identical to the one previously granted on 31 May 2018. The request was accompanied by an authority form of 13 April 2019 issued to Mr Khamroyev. The applicant’s signature in legible Cyrillic letters read ‘Dalabev’ ( Далабев ). 12.     On 16 April 2019 the Court informed Mr Khamroyev that the previous decision preventing the applicant’s removal to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court still stands. 13.     On the same day the applicant’s administrative expulsion from Russia was ordered by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court. The applicant was represented in these proceedings by Mr   Khamroyev. 14.     On 24 May 2019 the Court received an application form dated 20   May 2019 and signed by Mr   Khamroyev. The authority form integrated in the application form listed on the same page Mr Khamroyev as a representative, who is not a lawyer, Mr T. Shirokov as a representative who is a lawyer. The box intended for a representative’s signature contained a signature of Mr Khamroyev. The box intended for an applicant’s signature contained a signature composed of graphic symbols only and having no legible letters. THE LAW 15.     It is well-established in the Court’s case-law that where applicants choose to be represented under Rule 36 § 1 of the Rules of Court, rather than lodging the application themselves, Rule 45 § 3 requires them to produce a written authority to act, duly signed. It is essential for representatives to demonstrate that they have received specific and explicit instructions from the alleged victim, within the meaning of Article 34, on whose behalf they purport to act before the Court (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, § 102, ECHR 2014). 16.     The Court notes that in the present application serious concerns about the authenticity of the applicant’s signatures are caused by the fact that the spelling of the applicant’s own family name alternates in the signatures appearing on the authority forms of 28 May 2018 and 13   April   2019. However, even greater concerns are raised by the fact that the above signatures are flagrantly different from the signature on the application form of 20 April 2019 (see, a contrario , Aliev v. Georgia , no.   522/04, § 45, 13 January 2009). The Court cannot neglect the fact that within one week from signing the authority form of 13   April   2019 the applicant’s signature previously containing legible Cyrillic letters transformed in a signature composed of graphic symbols only and having no legible letters. 17.     The Court notes that the case-file contains no submissions originating from the applicant himself. It further notes that both Mr   Khamroyev and Mr   Shirokov had represented the applicant in the domestic proceedings and therefore had reasonable access to him to procure his signature on the application form. 18.     The Court lastly highlights that by the letter of 5 April 2019, received by Mr Khamroyev on 19 April 2019, he was informed that in case no duly completed and signed application form reached the Court by 31   May 2019 the application might be struck out of the list of cases. 19.     Having regard to the above consideration, the Court finds it impossible to establish reliably whether the application form of 20 May 2019 was signed by the applicant or to verify whether any or all of the alleged applicant’s signatures are genuine. 20.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 21.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. 22.     In accordance with Article   28 § 2 of the Convention, the present decision is final. Accordingly, the Court considers that the measure indicated to the Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court comes to an end. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 October 2019.   Stephen Phillips   Alena Poláčková   Registrar   President