CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 novembre 2023

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s943B079B { width:33.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4D2D3397 { width:115.07pt; display:inline-block } .sA3D40E95 { width:52.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 8143/18 and 8283/18 M.C. against Azerbaijan and F.S.B. against Azerbaijan The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Mattias Guyomar , judges , and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision of the President of the Section to give Ms   A.   Nasirli leave to represent the applicant in the proceedings before the Court (Rule 36 § 4 (a) in   fine   of the Rules of Court), the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 3, 5   §   1   (f) and 13 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision to give priority (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) to the applications; the decision to   grant the   applicants anonymity under the   terms of Rule   47   §   4 and Rule 33 § 2 of the Rules of Court; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES 1.     The applicants are Turkish citizens who resided in Azerbaijan for professional reasons at the time of the events. In 2017, Türkiye requested their extradition in relation to the attempted coup d’Etat in 2016. The applicants alleged in particular a risk of ill-treatment if extradited. The Government specified that the applicants were never arrested. Application no. 8143/18, M.C. 2.     On 5 February 2018, the applicant went himself to the police station in Baku upon an invitation letter and was questioned in relation to the abovementioned extradition request. The applicant fled after this event and his representative indicated not being able to reach him since 8 February 2018. The representative indicated having established   –   seemingly through the family members of the applicant   –   that the latter illegally crossed the border to Georgia and applied for asylum in this country, where he is currently residing. Application no. 8283/18, F.S.B. 3.     On 14 July 2017 the Azerbaijani authorities rejected the applicant’s asylum request. His subsequent claims regarding this administrative decision were rejected with the final decision of the Supreme Court on 6 June 2018. 4.     The representative of the applicant indicated having established upon her contact in 2020 with the applicant that the latter illegally crossed border to Georgia and went to Canada, where he is currently residing. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 6.     The Court considers unnecessary to dwell on the exceptions of the Government regarding the validity of the applications because it considers the applications inadmissible on the following grounds. 7.     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, Abdi Ahmed and Others v.   Malta   (dec.), no.   43985/13, §§   80 and 81, 16   September 2014). 8.     The substance of the present cases is built on the risk of extradition of the applicants by the Respondent State. However, this is not a legitimate ground anymore since the applicants live in Georgia and Canada, respectively. 9.     Also, both of the applicants were never arrested, despite the extradition requests mentioned above. 10.     Consequently, the applicants may not claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5   §   1   (f) of the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 11.     The Court further considers that the applicants have 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). It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 12.     The Court also stresses that it is open to the applicants to introduce a new application should the circumstances require so ( see Shenturk and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos.   41326/17 and 3 others, 10 April 2022). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 30 November 2023.     Sophie Piquet   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant’s Year of Birth Nationality Represented by 1. 8143/18 M.C. v.   Azerbaijan 13/02/2018 1955 Turkish   Asima NASIRLI 2. 8283/18 F.S.B.   v.   Azerbaijan 14/02/2018 1958 Turkish   Asima NASIRLI