CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s79831B32 { width:101.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB2D717CA { width:8.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s3EF72EDF { width:25.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6B9A0E3E { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DA62232 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s39AEB946 { width:16.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE6B15E7F { width:24.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7E79DAF4 { width:8.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sD3DE6EFA { width:25.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDC555E47 { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1989B891 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s12283442 { width:16.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50176368 { width:24.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 19 October 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42305/18 Yasin OZDIL and others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 6 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the extradition to Turkey of five Turkish nationals, suspected of ties with the Gülen movement. The applicants were high school professors, some of whom lived and worked in Moldova for more than twenty years. All of them had valid working and residence permits and had families in Moldova. On 6 September 2018, early in the morning, the applicants’ houses and apartments were stormed by masked persons from the Moldovan secret service. All applicants were arrested and taken to an unknown direction. Their whereabouts became unknown to their families for several days and it appeared only later that they had been extradited to Turkey on the same day by a charter flight. The Turkish press reported about a successful operation conducted in Moldova by the Turkish secret service concerning the apprehension of several members of the Gülen movement. The applicants complain that their arrest and detention was unlawful and contrary to Article 5 of the Convention; that the decision to extradite them to Turkey did not comply with the procedural requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7; that their extradition was in breach of their right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention and that they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning their extradition, as required by Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? 2.     Did the decision to expel the applicants – aliens who were lawfully residing in the territory of the respondent State – comply with the procedural requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 ( Ljatifi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 19017/16, 17 May 2018)? 3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private or family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? APPENDIX     N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nat. Place of residence Representative   Yasin OZDIL 1976 Turkish Chisinau V. Nagacevschi   Mujdat CELEBI 1972 Turkish Chisinau V. Nagacevschi   Riza DOGAN 1976 Turkish Chisinau V. Nagacevschi   Sedat Hasan KARACAOGLU 1970 Turkish Chisinau V. Nagacevschi   Mehmet Feridun TUFEKCI 1976 Turkish Comrat V. Nagacevschi