CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } Published on 29 April 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49068/20 Tural BAYRAMALIYEV against Türkiye lodged on 27 October 2020 communicated on 10 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1984. The application concerns the applicant’s detention in view of his extradition to Azerbaijan, on account of criminal proceedings initiated on charges of fraud. The applicant was first detained on 14 March 2018 and he remained in detention until his extradition on 11 April 2019, apart from a period of 14   days in which he was released (15-29 May 2018). On 30 July 2018 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court to complain, inter alia , of the alleged unlawfulness and the excessive length of his detention pending extradition. The Constitutional Court decided on 20 April 2020 that the applicant’s complaints were inadmissible for failure to exhaust the action for a full remedy ( tam yargı davası ) before administrative courts, which could in theory provide an effective remedy – in the form of compensation – following release from detention. The applicant mainly complains of the alleged unlawfulness of his detention for extradition purposes in view of the conduct of the extradition procedure. He further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and that the Constitutional Court failed to deliver a decision in a speedy manner. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention within the context of the extradition proceedings? In particular, had the applicant’s detention been justified under Article 5 §   1   (f) of the Convention? Were the extradition proceedings conducted in a diligent manner, particularly after the Court of Cassation’s final decision approving the extradition (see, among others, Amie and Others v.   Bulgaria , no. 58149/08, §§ 71-79, 12 February 2013; Khamroev and Others v.   Ukraine , no. 41651/10, §§ 90-99, 15 September 2016; Shiksaitov v.   Slovakia , nos.   56751/16 and 33762/17, §§ 53-56, 10 December 2020; and Komissarov v.   the Czech Republic , no. 20611/17, §§ 45-53, 3 February 2022)?   2. Given that the applicant had lodged his complaint with the Constitutional Court while he was still in detention, did he have at his disposal an effective remedy by which the lawfulness of his detention could be determined speedily, and his release ordered if necessary as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Khokhlov v. Cyprus , no. 53114/20, §§   72 ‑ 83, 13 June 2023, and the case-law cited therein)? In this context, the Government are also invited to respond to the complaint made by the applicant that the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine his individual application had been protracted.   3. Did the applicant duly exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in respect of his complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1? In this connection, is the action for a full remedy ( tam yargı davası ) before administrative courts capable of providing redress within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 in respect of the applicant’s complaint for the period following his release from detention?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the extradition file, together with information on the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the extradition procedure.   The Government are also invited to submit sample decisions, delivered in respect of detention orders pertaining to extradition or expulsion proceedings, where the domestic courts have examined – within the context of an action for full remedy – the merits of complaints lodged by foreigners concerning the unlawfulness of their detention and have awarded compensation. The Government are requested to include in their submissions decisions where the administrative courts have applied the time-limit rules for lodging an administrative action flexibly as suggested by the Constitutional Court in its decision of B.T. (no. 2014/15769, 30 November 2017, published in the Official Gazette on 16 February 2018).