Published on 5 December 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 26838/22 Ernesto Luis QUINTERO MENDEZ against Spain lodged on 24 May 2022 communicated on 15 November 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns the applicant’s detention since 10 February 2021 pending his extradition to Venezuela in order to be tried for the offences of fraud, misappropriation of funds and securities, money laundering and membership of a criminal organisation. The extradition decision was confirmed by the domestic courts on 1 December 2020, and became final by decision of the Council of Ministers on 12 January 2021. Although the applicant had been free pending the extradition proceedings, he was detained afterwards in order to facilitate his surrender to the Venezuelan authorities. As of the time of lodging the application, the applicant was still detained in Spain without a date having been set for the execution of his extradition or release.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (f) about the interpretation made by the domestic courts of the calculation of the period within which the extradition has to be executed under the applicable bilateral extradition treaty between Spain and Venezuela as well as Spanish law.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (f) of this provision?

Are the proceedings to execute the domestic courts’ decision to extradite the applicant to Venezuela still in progress, and, if so, are they being prosecuted with “due diligence”? (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom , 15 November 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009; Louled Massoud v. Malta , no. 24340/08, §§ 65-69, 27 July 2010; Kim v. Russia , no. 44260/13, §§ 49-53, 17 July 2014; or Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 90, 15 December 2016).

2. Is the detention of the applicant “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? (see J.N. v. the United Kingdom , no. 37289/12, § 77, 19 May 2016; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], § 91, and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 164, both cited above).

Are there sufficient guarantees in place to prevent his detention from being arbitrary? (see, among others, Kim v. Russia , cited above, § 53; Chahal v. the United Kingdom , cited above, §§ 118-119).

3. Does the applicant have at his disposal, in accordance with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, an effective procedure through which he can challenge the lawfulness of his detention? (see J.N. v. the United Kingdom , cited above, § 88).