Communicated on 10 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 53114/20 Iurii KHOKHLOV against Cyprus lodged on 25 November 2020

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s ongoing detention since 22 October 2018 for the purpose of his extradition to Russia to stand trial.

Following an order for his extradition issued on 20 May 2019 (no. 5/18), the applicant filed a habeas corpus application (no. 118/19) which was dismissed as lodged out of time. The applicant lodged an appeal (no. 364/19) which he eventually withdrew – allegedly as a result of the delay in the proceedings – requesting his extradition to Russia. As a result, on 16 September 2020 the appeal was dismissed. On 30 October 2020 he was informed that, due to the restrictive measures relating to Covid-19 in place by both Cyprus and Russia, the two states had decided to suspend his extradition. The extradition is allegedly yet to be arranged.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention that he has been unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, in unsatisfactory conditions of detention, as a result of unjustified delays on the part of the domestic authorities in effecting his extradition.

He further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention of the length of the appeal proceedings (no. 364/19), which allegedly did not meet the “speediness” requirement.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, did Cyprus act with the required diligence to secure the rights of the applicant under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05 , §164, ECHR 2009)?

2. 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. 364/19) 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?