CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juin 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 197 June 2016 Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.) - 20672/15 Decision 7.6.2016 [Section V] Article 3 Extradition Extradition to the United Stated where applicant faced charges amounting to a maximum prison sentence of 247.5   years: inadmissible Facts – In 2015 the applicant was extradited to the United States where he was wanted in connection with an international conspiracy he was alleged to have led to attack the computer networks of financial service providers for financial gain. In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained that the range of offences for which he had been extradited carried a maximum prison sentence of 247.5 years, which meant that, if convicted, he would have no prospect of being released, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention. Law – Article 3: There was no indication that the practices adopted in the United States as regards people suspected of cybercrime were similar to those adopted in respect of persons suspected of terrorism offences. Furthermore, none of the individual charges against the applicant carried life imprisonment. The applicant’s argument that he ran the risk of receiving a disproportionately long prison sentence in the United States was based on the allegation that, if convicted of all the offences in the indictment, he faced a maximum sentence of 247.5 years in prison, which would amount to de facto life imprisonment. The Court noted that the possibility of consecutive sentences did not seem to be excluded and reiterated that uncapped consecutive sentences, on their own, or in combination with a person’s age or health, could be equivalent to a life sentence. However, the applicant had not demonstrated that the maximum penalty would be imposed without due consideration of all the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, that a review of sentence would be unavailable, or that the maximum sentence of 247.5 years had to be imposed if he was found guilty of all the offences listed in the indictment. Moreover, a number of the applicant’s co-conspirators had already received from the same judge as the one assigned to the applicant’s case sentences that were far shorter than the original advisory sentencing range. In that regard, the applicant had not advanced any reasons why the advisory sentencing range applicable in his case (324-420 months in prison) would not be applied or why its application depended on his cooperating with the US Government. Moreover, the length of his prison sentence could be affected by pre-trial factors, and he also had the possibility to seek a reduction or commutation of his sentence. The existence of a risk of a prison sentence amounting to life imprisonment could not, therefore, be assumed and the problem of whether or not the applicant would have any chance of being released if convicted was not relevant. Accordingly, the applicant had not demonstrated that his extradition to the United States exposed him to a real risk of treatment reaching the Article   3 threshold as a result of the likely sentence. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (See Trabelsi v. Belgium , 140/10, 4   September 2014, Information Note   177 ; see also the Factsheet on Extradition and life imprisonment )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes