BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Michael Jason REGISTE v the Netherlands - 28620/09 [2010] ECHR 560 (23 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/560.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 560 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
28620/09
by Michael Jason REGISTE
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Michael Jason Registe, is an American national who was born in 1982 and, at the time the application was introduced, detained in Sint Maarten (Netherlands Antilles). He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Stomp, a lawyer practising in Sint Maarten.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 October 2008 the United States of America sought the applicant’s extradition from the Netherlands with a view to his being tried in the State of Georgia on charges of murder, armed robbery, possession of a firearm and drugs offences. The Joint Court of Justice (Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie) of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba declared the extradition permissible and advised the Governor of the Netherlands Antilles to proceed to extradite the applicant. On 26 May 2009 the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
B. Events after the introduction of the application
The applicant’s representative introduced the present case to the Court by fax of 1 June 2009, which fax also contained a request to the Court for an interim measure under Rule 39 § 1 of the Rules of Court, aimed at staying the applicant’s extradition pending the proceedings before the Court.
On 4 June 2009 the President decided to put a number of factual questions to the Government of the Netherlands under Rule 54 § 2 (a) and to adjourn the decision on the request under Rule 39 until the replies from the Government had been received.
Following receipt of the Government’s replies on 15 June 2009, the Chamber decided on 23 June 2009 not to indicate the interim measure sought by the applicant.
On 17 July 2009 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that his client wanted to maintain his application to the Court. By letters of 4 August and 10 December 2009 (the last one sent by registered mail, and received as shown by the signed acknowledgement of receipt-slip contained in the Court’s file), the Registry requested the applicant’s representative to submit an original application form as well as an original letter of authority. He was informed that a failure to do so could lead the Court to decide on the admissibility of the case on the basis of the file as it stood or to conclude that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the application. No reply has been received.
COMPLAINTS
Invoking Articles 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the applicant complained that he risked being sentenced to death following unfair criminal proceedings in Georgia.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about his impending extradition to Georgia.
The Court notes that, in spite of several requests made of the applicant’s representative to do so, the application was not completed. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President