BUT AGAINST SERBIA

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 4. March 2025. brought, and 25. Marta announced the verdict in the case of the same yearBut against Serbia, No. 4662/22.

The verdict is unanimouslydonelo seven-membered larger.

Circumstances Case

The applicant was deprived of liberty in Serbia 3. November 2021. based on the international warrant issued by the Branch of Interpol Kingdom Bahrain and was immediately awarded a lawyer ex officio.

The Senior Court in Belgrade also listened to the applicant on the same day, he appointed extradition custody for the danger of escape. In the decision on setting custody, it was 7. October 2013., after the trial in the Kingdom of Bahrain, the applicant was sentenced to the crime, use and possession of explosive devices, endangering public safety and damage to state and private property.

The Kingdom of Bahrain is 12. November 2021. requested the extradition of the applicant.

On the same day, the applicant's lawyer appealed to the decision on setting custody, pointing out that the applicant was a political prisoner and that he was eligible to seek asylum. She claimed that the conviction of the applicant was a way of calculating with a religious minority he belongs to.

The applicant is 15. November 2021. Terminals of Higher Court in Belgrade, claiming that the political activist, are the charges that the terrorist was false, as well as that in the Kingdom of Bahrain, was threatening his torture, for which the reason was sought for protection and asylum. The Senior Court in Belgrade later rejected the appeal of the applicant's lawyers, pointing out that he did not seek asylum in Serbia.

The Senior Court in Belgrade is then 7. December 2021. found that the legal assumptions for the extradition of the submission were met. In the solution, it was called for the European Convention on Extradition and the Law on International Legal Aid in criminal matters, but did not issue whether the applicant was faced by the risk of torture or abuse if extradited.

The applicant is against the said decision 13. December 2021. year, via the lawyer, said the appeal, and sent a three-letter court in Belgrade (9, 14. and 21. December 2021. years). He denied charges that were charged with him and demanded contact with a lawyer and family. He claimed that a political prisoner and ŠiIt by religion, and that in case of extradition, he would be exposed to the risk of torture, abuse and potential death penalties.

The Court of Appeals in Belgrade is 29. December 2021. scheduled a hearing that was postponed because it did not approach the applicant's lawyer. On the same occasion, the applicant pointed out that the lawyer never visited him in custody and that he had no contact with her.

At the new hearing 17. January 2022. The Court of Appeals in Belgrade refused the appeal and confirmed the decision of the higher court in Belgrade.

The Minister of Justice is 18. January 2022. passed a solution permitted by the extradition of the applicant Bahrain.

The Applicant's lawyer addressed the Belgrade Center for Human Rights (hereinafter: the Belgrade Center), which is 20. January 2022. informed the Asylum Office, the Border Police and Representative OfficeUNHCR"In Serbia that the applicant, ŠIt by religion, sentenced to life imprisonment in Kingdom of Bahrain, to check out the country's extradition and that he expressed intention during extradition procedure to request asylum.

As the Border Police Directorate 21. January 2022. responded to the applicant or in person or through proxies with the submission, the applicant authorized five employees in the Belgrade Center and two lawyers to represent it. One of the new representatives requested the Border Police Directorate and Asylum Office in 15.21 hours to provide access to the applicant. The working hours of the Asylum Office is until 3.30 pm.

On the same day, the Police Officer informed the Senior Court in Belgrade that the proportion of the applicant was planned for Tuesday 25. January 2022. years.

The Court 21. January 2022, at 13.13, informed the Provisional Measure, and in 19.57 hours, adopted a temporary measure by which the Republic of Serbia was ordered not to 25. January 2022. years until 5 pm.

The Administration of the Border Police and the Asylum Office by the Belgrade Center, and at 22:19 pm, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice through the Office of the Representative by the Office of the Representative by the Office of the Representative shall be notified in 21.23 o'clock. The Office of Representatives has notified these organs through regular mail on Monday, 24. January 2022. years.

The interpol branch in Bahrain was on Saturday, 22. January 2022. year, in the early morning, on Monday, 24. January 2022. The Senior Court in Belgrade in Belgrade was notified on this time.

The police officer is 23. January 2022. informed the Senior Court in Belgrade on the temporary measure of the Court, and asked if the judge could "finally solve that issue." The judge replied that the Ministry of Justice was the only competent decision-making authority in a given situation.

The applicant was extradited to the Kingdom of Bahrain 24. January 2022. year at 4:00 in the morning.

The Border Police Administration is 27. January 2022. years, said the applicant that the applicant was not registered as a person who expressed the intention of asylum, in accordance with the relevant members of the Asylum Act.

The Court is on 28. January 2022 ended the temporary measure from 21. January.

The applicant's proxies are 18. February 2022. submitted the Constitutional Court to the constitutional complaint against the decision of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade and the Ministry of Justice from 17. and 18. January 2022. Years. The constitutional complaint is on 11. February 2025. years was still in operation.

At its own initiative, the Protector of Citizens initiated the procedure of working by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and after the procedure, in its report, in its report in the work of the said bahrain, and in the decision-making procedure Its request for obtaining asylum in the Republic of Serbia, as the request of such content was never submitted to the regular path.

The applicant's attorneys are 28. November 2022. years of court to issue another temporary measure to order the Government to return to Serbia, but the Court refused to return their request.

Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures

The applicant submitted to the applicant 21. January 2022. years.

In the representations, a violation of the banning of the torture from Article 3 (hereinafter: the Convention), as the domestic authorities shall be extremely external reasons for believing in order to faced real risk or disgraceful treatment, as well as a personal life Prison without appearance to ever be released. The applicant also complained that his right to an effective remedy under Article 13. the Convention, especially because his domestic authorities did not allow him to apply for asylum.

Decision Court

• Article 3 of the Convention

The Court stated that the legal remedy in a situation where the applicant seeks to prevent his removal from the territory of the state. The Convention may only be effective if it produces automatic suspensive effect.

Accordingly, the Court stood on the point of submitting the constitutional complaint, nor applying for asylum or expressing intention to request asylum, cannot be considered effective remedies against the decision on extradition in the Republic of Serbia.

According to the use of legal funds that are not adequate or effective, having a risk of abuse in contrast to Article 3, in the case of its extradition, the Court rejected the government of the government's inexhausting local remedies.

The Court further noticed that the only attempt to analyze the possibility of coping the applicant with any risk, the fact that the relevant law of the Kingdom of Bahrain does not prescribe the criminal offense in relation to which his extradition was requested. Any examination of the situation in the Kingdom of Bahrain was not performed, nor the personal circumstances of the applicant. Assessing the circumstances of the case was limited to a formal examination of legal conditions for the extradition of the applicant.

The court was followed by the court that domestic authorities did not perform any of the applicants' allegations in relation to abuse in the Kingdom of Bahrain, which occurred a violation of the process aspect of Article 3. Convention.

• Article 13 of the Convention

With regard to its conclusion regarding Article 3 of the Convention, the Court did not consider it necessary to analyze the admissibility and merits of complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.

• Article 34 Convention

The court noted that at the time of submitting the decision on temporary, extradition was planned for Tuesday, 25. January 2022. years, and that domestic authorities have at least one working day that would ensure that all relevant bodies were informed about temporary.

Only after submitting temporary measures, the extradition of the applicant was moved for Monday, 24. January 2022. years, at 4 p.m. in the morning, for unknown reasons.

The Court noticed that the request of the Kingdom of Bahrain was also received outside working hours, on Saturday 22. January 2022. years, but that it did not prevent domestic authorities from acting.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that nothing objectively represented an obstacle to respect for the temporary measure that the court brought.

Consequently, the Court found that the Serb authorities did not act on temporary measure of the Court passed as a rule 39, thus breached their obligation toward article 34. Convention.

Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)

The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of HRK 9,800.00 in the name of the compensation of intangible damage, while the remaining requests for the applicant for fair satisfaction rejected.