Published on 27 March 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 19274/20
Iraklii DZHANDZHGAVA
against Cyprus
lodged on 7 May 2020
communicated on 8 March 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s detention between 8 September 2017 and 26 August 2020 for the purpose of his extradition to Russia to stand for trial.
Following an order for his extradition issued by the Limassol District Court on 8 September 2017 (proceedings no. 3/16) the applicant filed a habeas corpus application (no. 137/17) which was dismissed on 17 November 2017. On 19 December 2017 the applicant filed an appeal (no. 427/17), which was also dismissed on 4 March 2020. In the meantime, the applicant applied for asylum, the examination of which was pending before the domestic authorities at the time of application with the Court.
On 22 April 2020 he had been informed by the Minister of Justice, inter alia, that due to the emergency situation created by the Covid-19 pandemic and the applicable Ministerial Orders at the time, his surrender to Russia had been suspended and the provisions of Article 18 § 5 of the European Convention on Extradition would apply. The applicant was eventually surrendered to the Russian authorities on 26 August 2020.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, in unsatisfactory conditions of detention, for an excessively long time beyond the time-limits provided for by the domestic law and for reasons not allowed under the exception of Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.
He further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention of the length of the appeal proceedings (no. 427/17) which allegedly did not meet the “speediness” requirement.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in relation to his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant’s detention in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? The Government’s reply in this respect should also address the alleged prolongation of the applicant’s detention beyond the time limits provided for in the domestic law following 22 April 2020 and until his surrender.
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of the appeal proceedings (no. 427/17) in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?