FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 47593/10 Andrey Aleksandrovich KHOMULLO against Ukraine lodged on 17 July 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrey Aleksandrovich Khomullo , is a Russian national who was born in 1976. His present place of residence is unknown.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 24 November 2008 the applicant arrived in Ukraine .

On 31 November 2008 the Murmansk Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office (“the MRPO”) in Russia instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud.

On 2 December 2008 the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons by the Murmansk Regional Department of the Interior.

On 3 December 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Murmansk ordered his arrest.

On 19 April 2010 an international arrest warrant was issued.

On the same date the applicant was arrested by the Ukrainian police with a view to his extradition.

On 22 April 2010 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Prymorskyy Court ”) remanded the applicant in custody for forty days pending the extradition procedure.

On 29 April 2010 the General Prosecutor ’ s Office of Ukraine (“the GPOU”) received a request from its Russian counterpart about the applicant ’ s extradition and the extension of his detention pending extradition.

On 11 May 2010 the GPOU received a further request from the Russian prosecution authorities about the applicant ’ s detention and extradition.

On 21 May 2010 the Prymorskyy Court extended the applicant ’ s detention “pending the resolution of the issue of his extradition”, by allowing the prosecutor ’ s application.

On 3 June 2010 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the aforementioned decision.

On 17 June 2010 legislative amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure governing extradition procedures, including arrest and detention, came into effect.

On 23 June 2010 the applicant ’ s detention was extended again, this time by the Malynivskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Malynivskyy Court ”), “pending the resolution of the issue of his extradition and the actual transfer”. This decision did not contain any reference to the aforementioned legislative amendments.

On 30 July 2010 the Malynivskyy Court allowed the prosecutor ’ s application for the applicant ’ s “extradition arrest” pending a decision on his extradition, pursuant to the amendments in force since 17 June 2010.

On 1 September 2010 the GPOU decided to extradite the applicant to Russia .

On 9 September 2010 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv dismissed, without examination, the applicant ’ s complaint against the GPOU concerning the length of the extradition procedure and the alleged unlawfulness of his detention.

On 28 September 2010 the Malynivskyy Court extended the applicant ’ s detention pending extradition. It noted that the GPOU ’ s decision of 1 September 2010 had not been challenged and had come into force.

On 12 October 2010 the applicant was extradited to the Russian Federation .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on 17 June 2010, are cited in the case of Mokallal v. Ukraine (no. 19246/10 , § 28, 10 November 2011).

Other relevant domestic law and practice is summarised in the judgments Soldatenko v. Ukraine (2440/07, §§ 21-29 and 31, 23 October 2008), and Dubovik v. Ukraine (nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08 , § 33, 15 October 2009) .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his detention. He also complains under Article 5 § 4 that there was no adequate judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. Lastly, he complains under Article 6 § 3 (c) that he had no access to a lawyer during his detention in Ukraine .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s detention lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f)? In particular, was he deprived of his liberty prior to 17 June 2010 and after this date in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law as required by Article 5 § 1 ?

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, prior to 17 June 2010 and after this date?