CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s96B1B5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCDC5DB60 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s871A718A { width:136.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF KHOKHLOV v. CYPRUS (Application no. 53114/20)   JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 4 July 2023 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Art 5 § 4 • Speediness of review • Habeas corpus appeal proceedings reviewing lawfulness of detention pending extradition lasting over eleven months • Unjustified delays despite ending of Covid-19-measures • Lengthy extensions for parties’ submissions Art 5 § 1 • Extradition • Unjustified delays in habeas corpus and appeal proceedings • Decision to suspend extradition until further notice, in absence of agreed surrender date, deprived applicant of procedural guarantees under the European Convention on Extradition   STRASBOURG 13 June 2023   FINAL   13/09/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khokhlov v. Cyprus, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   53114/20) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr   Iurii Khokhlov (“the applicant”), on 25 November 2020; the decision to give notice to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 5 § 1 and 5 § 4 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation not to avail themselves of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 23 May 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending extradition on account of, inter alia , its unjustified duration, contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, and the failure of the domestic courts to comply with the “speediness” requirement under Article   5 § 4 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1970. He was represented by Mr   Y.L.   Boychenko, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   George   L.   Savvides, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. PROVISIONAL ARREST 5.     The applicant was sought within the context of an investigation in Russia into a case of large-scale fraud. 6.     On 8 December 2017 Interpol issued through the National Central Bureau of Interpol for Russia, in connection with the above-mentioned investigation, a Red Notice in respect of the applicant, requesting that he be located and provisionally arrested pending his extradition. According to the wording of the Red Notice, the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow had issued, on 24 August 2017, a warrant for the arrest of the applicant, who was suspected of having conspired to misappropriate property belonging to a third party and who had been charged with large-scale fraud, a crime punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment. 7.     The applicant arrived in Cyprus on 22 October 2018 at 1.30 p.m. While his passport was being checked, his name was flagged up on the domestic “Stop List”. He was transferred to the arrivals section of Larnaca International Airport’s passport control office, where the existence of an arrest warrant issued by the Russian authorities was confirmed. 8.     On the same day at 6.25 p.m., the President of the Larnaca District Court issued a provisional warrant for the arrest of the applicant under sections 8(1)(b) and 8(2) of the Extradition Law (L. 97/1970) and the European Convention on Extradition (“the Extradition Convention”), as ratified by the European Convention on Extradition (Ratification) Law (L.95/1970) (“Ratification Law 95/70). The provisional arrest warrant was issued on the basis of an affidavit sworn by a police officer, to which was attached a “diffusion and notice request” issued by Interpol’s Russian National Central Bureau in Moscow. The applicant was arrested at 7 p.m. at the offices of Larnaca International Airport’s passport control office. 9 .     By a letter of 23 October 2018, the police informed the Ministry of Justice and Public Order (“the Ministry of Justice”) that the applicant was wanted by the Russian authorities, who had confirmed on 22   October 2018 that all necessary documents and that the official request for his extradition would be sent via diplomatic channels. The letter further stated that the applicant had been arrested on 22 October 2018, was being detained at Aradippou police station and would be brought before the Larnaca District Court on 23 October 2018. EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS (APPLICATION N o . 5/2018) 10.     On 23 October 2018, following the execution of the provisional arrest warrant, the applicant was brought before the Larnaca District Court within the context of application no. 5/2018 for his extradition. The government’s lawyer requested the extension of the applicant’s detention until such time as the Russian authorities lodged a formal request for the applicant’s extradition (together with supporting documents). The applicant objected. 11 .     On 24 October 2018 the court delivered an interim decision (that was based on section 9 of the Extradition Law and Article 16 § 4 of the Extradition Convention) ordering the extension of the applicant’s detention; it further instructed the authorities to submit, within twenty days, authorisation for the initiation of extradition proceedings from the Minister of Justice and Public Order. The court approved the extension of the applicant’s detention having first considered the fact that the applicant had been accused of a serious crime and had no family in (or other ties with) Cyprus; it deemed that the chance of his absconding would be therefore high if his detention were not extended. 12.     On 8 November 2018 the Russian authorities lodged an official request with the Cypriot authorities for the applicant’s extradition. The Ministry of Justice received the request on 9 November 2018. 13.     On 12 November 2018 the Cypriot authorities requested the Russian authorities for better translations of certain documents that had accompanied the request for the applicant’s extradition. The Russian authorities provided those translations on 14 November 2018. 14.     On 15 November 2018 the Minister of Justice authorised the initiation of extradition proceedings. 15 .     On 16 November 2018 the Cypriot authorities presented the Minister’s authorisation and the above-mentioned accompanying documents to the Larnaca District Court and the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant’s lawyer requested that the application be listed for further directions on 21   November 2018 in order that he might (in the meantime) have time to study the relevant documents. The court granted that request. The Cypriot authorities’ lawyer requested that the applicant remain in detention. The applicant’s lawyer did not raise any objection. 16 .     On 21 November 2018 the case was scheduled for hearings on 14 and 19 December at the request of the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant’s lawyer further requested that the applicant be released on bail. The Cypriot authorities’ lawyer argued that (i) the amount that the applicant offered as bail – 50,000 euros (EUR) cash, together with a letter of guarantee from his bank for EUR 100,000 – was very low, and did not cover the amounts that he was accused of having appropriated (300,000 United States dollars (USD)), and (ii) there remained a large risk that, in order to avoid facing a trial, he might flee via those areas of Cyprus that were not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus. The lawyer therefore requested that the applicant remain in detention pending extradition proceedings. The court ordered that the applicant remain in detention, as no new circumstances had come to light to justify his release. 17 .     On 14 December 2018 the applicant asked that he be permitted to change his lawyer for another one. The court stressed the importance of bringing the case to a speedy conclusion in view of the applicant’s detention. On the same day, at the request of the applicant’s new lawyer, the case was “adjourned for planning” ( για προγραμματισμό ), allowing the new lawyer to confirm receipt of the case files and to prepare for the (as yet unscheduled) hearing. The court stated that the applicant’s continued detention was still justified. 18 .     On 19 December 2018 the applicant’s new lawyer requested the applicant’s release from detention on account of the adjournment of the previous hearing in respect of the case, arguing that the applicant had been willing, inter alia, to pay EUR 100,000 in cash as bail. The court dismissed the request, finding that the adjournment had been requested by the applicant’s lawyer and that in any event, the reasons for holding the applicant in detention (see paragraph 11 above) remained valid. The court then scheduled hearings for 9 January and 11 January 2019, requesting the government to conclude the presentation of its arguments by the end of the 9   January proceedings, in order to allow the defence to begin presenting its arguments on 11 January 2019. 19.     On 9 January 2019 the court heard one witness for the government. The case was then adjourned until 11 January 2019, when the last witness for the government would be heard. The applicant’s lawyer did not object. 20 .     On 11 January 2019 the government requested that the hearing be adjourned, as its last witness (the Ministry of Justice employee who had overseen arrangements for the issuance of the Minister’s authorisation) had fallen ill. The government submitted to the court a medical certificate attesting to that fact. The applicant’s lawyer objected to such an adjournment and requested that the applicant be released on bail, on condition that he be subject to certain restrictions. The court expressed its dissatisfaction and concern regarding the delay that would be caused by the adjournment; however, it eventually decided to allow the adjournment in view of, inter alia, the fact that up until that point, a significant part of the responsibility for previous adjournments had lain with the applicant. As a result, it ordered that the proceedings be continued on 21 January 2019 and the applicant remain in detention until that date. 21 .     On 21 January 2019 the last witness called by the government testified in court. The applicant’s lawyer requested an adjournment of one week to allow for the translation into English of certain exhibits (material evidence) submitted by the Russian authorities, as he intended to further cross ‑ examine the witness; he argued that the translation of the documents had been inaccurate and inadequate and that a certain document in Russian dated 24   August 2017 entitled “Decision on the choice of a preventive measure in the form of arrest” had not constituted an arrest warrant, as required by the Cypriot extradition law and the European Convention on Extradition. The court allowed the request. 22 .     On 29 January 2019 the cross-examination of the government’s last witness was concluded. Hearings were scheduled for 11, 22 and 25 February 2019 for the hearing of the witnesses called by the applicant. 23 .     On 11 February 2019 the applicant gave his testimony in the examination-in-chief. His cross-examination was then adjourned until 22   February 2019 to allow time for the government to seek clarification from the Russian authorities regarding the content of the evidence that had been submitted by the applicant, which indicated that the criminal proceedings against him in Russia had been halted. The applicant’s lawyer did not object to the adjournment but requested that he be released from detention. The court refused the request, holding that the reasons for holding him in detention (see paragraph 11 above) still applied. 24 .     On 22 February 2019 the applicant’s cross-examination was completed. The next hearings were rescheduled for 27 and 28 February at the request of the applicant’s lawyer in order to allow time for two witnesses to be brought from Russia. 25 .     On 27 and 28 February 2019 a lawyer from Russia testified as a defence witness. On 28 February the applicant informed the court that he had no further witnesses. Subsequently, the government requested leave to call witnesses to rebut the testimony given by the applicant and the above ‑ mentioned defence witness, both of whom had (i) fervently questioned whether legal proceedings were indeed still pending against the applicant in Russia, and (ii) the validity (under the Extradition Convention – see paragraph 71 below) of the arrest warrant issued against him. A hearing was therefore scheduled for 5 March 2019, on which date the parties gave their views regarding the request. 26 .     On 12 March 2019 having heard the parties, the court decided to allow the government’s request, considering, inter alia, that clarifying the above ‑ noted points would be both in the interests of justice and necessary under extradition law. 27 .     On 19 March 2019 the head of the International Legal Cooperation Unit of the Ministry of Justice gave his testimony in court and was cross ‑ examined by the applicant. The applicant’s lawyer requested that a hearing be scheduled for 11 April 2019 at which the parties could make their final observations in writing ( τελικές αγορεύσεις ). The District Court pointed out to the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant would have to remain in detention in the meantime, but the lawyer nevertheless insisted that adequate time was required for him and his client to prepare their observations. The court eventually granted the request of the applicant’s lawyer. 28.     On 11 April 2019 the parties submitted their written observations. The final judgment of the court was scheduled to be given on 8 May 2019 but was later postponed until 20 May 2019. 29 .     On 20 May 2019 the Larnaca District Court confirmed the conformity of the extradition request with the Extradition Convention and its compliance with the double-criminality principle (which stipulates that the alleged crime for which extradition is being sought must be criminal in both the demanding and the requested countries) and the ne bis in idem principle and ruled out the possibility that the proceedings had been brought for any discriminatory or political reasons. The court dismissed, inter alia, the applicant’s assertion that no criminal case was pending against him in Russia. After considering the evidence provided by the Russian authorities and produced in court, it held that the applicant had been charged on the basis of the facts ascertained by a criminal investigation (no. 11602450047000081). That investigation had resulted in the conviction of four other persons with whom the applicant was accused of having conspired to commit the offence of fraud. However, according to the evidence provided by the Russian authorities, that did not mean that proceedings in respect of the applicant’s prosecution had been terminated. As the applicant had fled the country, the charges against him had continued to be pursued in separate proceedings (no. 41702450048000049). Accordingly, the court concluded that active proceedings were pending against the applicant before the Russian courts. 30.     The court further dismissed the applicant’s assertion that the arrest warrant issued by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 24 August 2017 was not (given that inter alia , allegedly no proceedings were pending against him in Russia) a valid one under the Extradition Convention. Having examined all the available evidence the court concluded that the Russian courts – on the basis of evidence indicating that the offence had indeed been committed – had decided that the applicant would be detained for two months once he had been extradited back to Russia. The court approved the application for extradition and ordered the applicant’s detention until his surrender to the Russian authorities. The applicant was also informed of his right under section 10 of the Extradition Law to challenge that judgment by lodging a habeas corpus application with the Supreme Court within fifteen days. HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATIONS Habeas corpus application no. 94/2019 31 .     On 4 June 2019 the applicant – represented by a lawyer – lodged a habeas corpus application (no. 94/2019) with the Supreme Court. 32 .     On 2 July 2019 when the case was first listed for directions ( οδηγίες ), the court informed the applicant that his application had not been correctly pleaded, as it constituted in essence an appeal against the judgment of 20 May 2019, instead of an application for a prerogative order ( προνομιακό ένταλμα – that is, a writ of habeas corpus) concerning the lawfulness of his detention. Nonetheless, the applicant’s lawyer insisted on continuing, so a hearing was scheduled for 4 July 2019. 33 .     On 4 July 2019 the applicant withdrew his application. Habeas corpus application no. 118/2019 34 .     On 9 July 2019 the applicant lodged a new habeas corpus application (no. 118/2019) with the Supreme Court. 35 .     On 20 August 2019, when the new habeas corpus application was first listed for directions, the lawyer acting for the government requested three weeks in which to submit its objection to the applicant’s application. The applicant did not object. The court scheduled a hearing for 9 September 2019. 36 .     On 8 September 2019 the government’s lawyer informed the court that she had mistakenly thought that the hearing had been scheduled for 19   September (rather than 9 September) and requested another week in which to submit a written objection. The applicant agreed to the request in order to follow the procedure correctly and the court rescheduled the hearing for 26   September 2019. 37 .     On 26 September 2019 a hearing was held. The court informed the parties that it would deliver its decision on 3 October 2019. 38 .     On 3 October 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed the application as having been lodged out of time, given that it had been submitted forty-nine days after the District Court’s judgment (as opposed to the fifteen-day deadline provided by the law). Nonetheless, the court still considered the application on its merits, finding that none of the conditions for the release of a person to be extradited from detention, as laid out in section 10(3) of the Extradition Law, had been fulfilled. APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION 39.     On 7 October 2019, without the assistance of a lawyer, the applicant lodged civil appeal no. 364/2019 with the Supreme Court (appellate jurisdiction) challenging the court’s findings in its judgment of 3   October 2019 in habeas corpus application no. 118/2019. He submitted a notice of appeal by filling in the form used for appeals against criminal court decisions. 40.     On 18 October 2019 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a notice of appearance ( σημείωμα εμφάνισης ). 41 .     On 4 November 2019, when the appeal was first listed for directions, the applicant informed the court that he no longer wished to be represented by a lawyer and that he would thenceforth represent himself. The court informed him that the form that he had submitted on 7 October 2019 was not the correct form with which to lodge an appeal; it ordered him to submit the correct form by 14 November 2019. 42.     On 14 November 2019 the applicant appeared in court with a new lawyer, who requested a fifteen-day extension to the deadline for amending the appeal submitted by the applicant. The court allowed the extension and scheduled 3 December 2019 as the date on which the case would be listed for directions. 43 .     On 3 December 2019 the court noted that the appeal had been correctly lodged. It gave directions for the submission of the written outlines of the arguments that the parties would make to the court, extending the deadline for submission to sixty days for each party. 44.     On 10 January 2020 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an application for leave to amend the appeal by adding an extra ground of appeal. 45.     On 4 February 2020, when the case was listed for directions in respect of the above-mentioned application, the State’s lawyer did not object to the addition of an extra ground of appeal and requested that the State be given the same amount of time in which to prepare their written outlines. The Supreme Court allowed the application for leave to add an extra ground of appeal and ordered the applicant’s lawyers to submit their amended grounds of appeal within thirty days; a new court date would then subsequently be scheduled. 46.     On 21 February 2020 the applicant submitted the amended grounds of appeal. 47 .     On 16 March 2020 the plenary Supreme Court announced that it had decided to suspend judicial proceedings and the further promotion (that is, the continuation) of all cases at all levels and jurisdictions until 30 April 2020 on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions imposed by the State, with the following exceptions: “... (iii) habeas corpus applications; (iv) procedures for the extradition of fugitives or wanted persons; (v) prerogative orders of an urgent nature, at the discretion of the court; and ... (vii) appeals of an urgent nature, at the discretion of the court.” 48 .     On 14 April 2020 the Supreme Court announced that it would use the summer break to deal with cases whose conduct had been delayed in the months of March and April 2020. 49.     On 30 April 2020 the Supreme Court announced its decision to resume the normal functioning of registries on 4 May 2020; it stated that the president of each bench would decide on the adjudication of each of the cases that that bench had been examining before the onset of the Covid-19 epidemic and that the respective interested parties would be informed accordingly. 50 .     On 11 September 2020 the appeal was listed for directions; the parties were instructed to submit their written outlines following the amendment of the grounds of the applicant’s appeal. On the same day, the Supreme Court emphasised the fact that the applicant had been in detention for a long time and asked the parties how long they would require to submit their written outlines. The State’s lawyer requested forty-five days in which to prepare and submit its written outlines on account of the volume of work she had at the time. The applicant did not object and the Supreme Court granted the request lodged by the State’s lawyer. 51 .     On 14 September 2020 the applicant lodged a written request with the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice and Public Order of the Republic of Cyprus (“the Prison Department”) – which forwarded the request to the Supreme Court – that he be allowed to withdraw his appeal and that he be voluntarily extradited to Russia “as soon as possible”; he stated that the conditions of his detention had been “very good” and that he had “no claims against the Prison Department”, but that his decision was based solely on “personal motives”. 52.     On 15 September 2020 the Prison Department forwarded the applicant’s request to the Supreme Court. 53 .     On 16 September 2020 the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeal in the light of the applicant’s request. An order dismissing the appeal was drawn up on 9 October 2020. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS AND THE APPLICANT’S EXTRADITION 54.     On 13 October 2020 the Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus informed the Ministry of Justice of the applicant’s request for the withdrawal of his appeal and that his surrender to the Russian authorities had been allowed as of that date. 55.     The next day internal directions were given for the briefing of the Minister of Justice and for the preparation of the order for the applicant to be surrendered to the Russian authorities. 56 .     On 16 October 2020 the police informed the Ministry of Justice of a request lodged on 15 October 2020 by the Russian authorities for the applicant’s surrender to be postponed. The Russian authorities informed the Cypriot authorities that since 27 March 2020 all regular flights between the two countries had been suspended as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Russian authorities had therefore asked that the applicant’s extradition be postponed until the end of the pandemic and regular flights between the two countries were resumed. They had further requested to be informed of the maximum length of time that the extradition could be postponed and had asked that the applicant be kept in detention for as long as possible. 57 .     On 29 October 2020 the Minister of Justice signed an order for the applicant’s surrender, in accordance with section 11 of the Extradition Law (L. 97/70) (see paragraph 71 below). 58 .     By a letter dated 29 October 2020, the General Director of the Ministry of Justice informed the director of the Prison Department of the following: “I have been instructed to refer to the above-mentioned subject matter and to forward to you, in duplicate, the attached order of surrender in respect of KHOKHLOV Yuri Aleksandrovich, dated 29 October 2020, duly signed by the Minister of Justice and Public Order. 2. Ιn accordance with the decision [taken] by the Minister on the basis of an earlier relevant opinion issued by the Attorney General, in view of the emergency situation that exists as a result of the decree on decontamination (determining measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19), Decree No. 3 of 2020 – and taking into account the deadline set by the [Extradition Law], as well as the expressed inability of the Russian authorities to receive the fugitive immediately owing to the temporary suspension of flights from the Russian Federation to the Republic of Cyprus that is in force as a result of the coronavirus – the delivery [of the applicant to Russia] is suspended. The provisions of Article 18, paragraph 5 of the [Extradition Convention] – which was ratified by means of Ratifying Law 95/1970 – will apply; [those provisions] stipulate that in the event of force majeure preventing extradition, the two States shall come to an agreement determining another delivery date. 3. Ιn order to implement the above, please inform the fugitive and the requesting country immediately.” 59 .     By a letter dated 30 October 2020, the Ministry of Justice informed the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation that the Larnaca District Court had delivered a decision on 20 May 2019 (see paragraph   29 above). The Ministry also explained that under section 12(a) of the Extradition Law, a fugitive had to be surrendered to the requesting State within sixty days of the relevant district court’s decision becoming final (see section 12(a) of the Extradition Law, paragraph 71 below). However, the Ministry explained that owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s expressed inability (as a result of the suspension of flights) to receive the applicant within the timeframe set by the law, the Minister of Justice had decided to postpone the surrender of the applicant and to apply the provisions of Article 18 § 5 of the Extradition Convention. The Ministry further explained that it would liaise with the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation again to agree a new date of surrender “once the restrictive measures are lifted in a manner that renders the surrender [of the applicant] possible”. 60 .     A similar letter was sent by the Ministry to the applicant on the same day, explaining that even though he should under normal circumstances be surrendered to the requesting State within sixty days of the date of the District Court’s decision becoming final (that is to say within sixty days of 16   September 2020, when his appeal had been dismissed), owing to the Covid-19-related restrictive measures, and in the light of the Russian authorities’ inability to receive him within the timeframe set by the law, the Minister of Justice had decided (applying the provisions of Article 18 § 5 of the Extradition Convention) to suspend his surrender. The Ministry further informed the applicant that it had been in communication with the Russian authorities regarding “the setting of a new date”. 61 .     By a letter dated 4 November 2020 to the Ministry of Justice, the applicant’s lawyers requested the Ministry to take all necessary measures to extradite the applicant. The applicant informed the Ministry that a flight was scheduled for 6   November 2020 from Cyprus to Russia, and he requested that he be placed on the said flight; he added that he was willing to pay the cost of a ticket himself. The applicant further emphasised that there was no longer any barrier to his extradition. 62 .     On 5 November 2020 the Ministry of Justice informed the Russian authorities of the above-noted request and asked them to consider agreeing on a new surrender date. 63 .     By means of an email dated 13 November 2020 the Ministry of Justice requested Interpol’s Nicosia office to forward their letter of 5 November 2020 to the “corresponding authorities” in Russia and called for arrangements to be made immediately for the applicant’s surrender. 64 .     By a letter of 13 November 2020 (received on 16   November 2020) the applicant informed the Ministry of Justice that Aeroflot Airlines had scheduled regular flights from Cyprus to Russia (to begin running from 22   November 2020); the applicant reiterated his wish to be extradited as soon as possible. 65 .     By means of an email of 17 November 2020 the Ministry of Justice informed the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation of the applicant’s letter. 66 .     On 23 November 2020 the police informed the Ministry of Justice of a letter dated 20 November 2020 sent to it by the Russian authorities stating their readiness to receive the applicant on 6 December 2020. 67.     On the same day the applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s immediate release, informing the Ministry of Justice that the applicant’s continued detention had been in violation of, inter alia , his rights under the Convention. 68 .     On 1 December 2020 the Ministry of Justice replied to the above ‑ mentioned letter, denying any unlawfulness and any delays on the part of the Cypriot authorities. The Ministry further informed the applicant that his surrender was scheduled for 6 December 2020. 69 .     On 6 December 2020 the applicant was extradited to Russia. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW 70 .     The relevant provisions of the European Convention on Extradition, signed in Paris on 13 December 1957 and ratified by Cyprus by the European Convention on Extradition (Ratification) Law 95/1970, provide: Article 1 – Obligation to extradite “The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order.” Article 2 – Extraditable offences “1. Extradition shall be granted in respect of offences punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and of the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order for a maximum period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. Where a conviction and prison sentence have occurred or a detention order has been made in the territory of the requesting Party, the punishment awarded must have been for a period of at least four months. 2. ....” Article 3 – Political offences “1. Extradition shall not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested Party as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence. 2. ....” Article 9 – Non bis in idem “Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competent authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences.” Article 12 – The request and supporting documents “1. The request shall be in writing and shall be communicated through the diplomatic channel. Other means of communication may be arranged by direct agreement between two or more Parties. 2. The request shall be supported by: a. the original or an authenticated copy of the conviction and sentence or detention order immediately enforceable or of the arrest warrant or other order having the same effect and issued in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law of the requesting Party; b. a statement of the offences for which extradition is requested. The time and place of their commission, their legal descriptions and a reference to the relevant legal provisions shall be set out as accurately as possible; and c. a copy of the relevant enactments or, where this is not possible, a statement of the relevant law and as accurate a description as possible of the person claimed, together with any other information which will help to establish his identity and nationality.” Article 13 – Supplementary information “If the information communicated by the requesting Party is found to be insufficient to allow the requested Party to make a decision in pursuance of this Convention, the latter Party shall request the necessary supplementary information and may fix a time‑limit for the receipt thereof.” Article 16 – Provisional arrest “1. In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought. The competent authorities of the requested Party shall decide the matter in accordance with its law. ... 4. Provisional arrest may be terminated if, within a period of 18 days after arrest, the requested Party has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in Article 12. It shall not, in any event, exceed 40 days from the date of such arrest. The possibility of provisional release at any time is not excluded, but the requested Party shall take any measures which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought.” Article 18 – Surrender of the person to be extradited “1. The requested Party shall inform the requesting Party by the means mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 1, of its decision with regard to the extradition. 2. Reasons shall be given for any complete or partial rejection. 3. If the request is agreed to, the requesting Party shall be informed of the place and date of surrender and of the length of time for which the person claimed was detained with a view to surrender. 4. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article, if the person claimed has not been taken over on the appointed date, he may be released after the expiry of 15 days and shall in any case be released after the expiry of 30 days. The requested Party may refuse to extradite him for the same offence. 5. If circumstances beyond its control prevent a Party from surrendering or taking over the person to be extradited, it shall notify the other Party. The two Parties shall agree a new date for surrender and the provisions of paragraph 4 of this article shall apply.” RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 71 .     The relevant provisions of the Extradition Law of 1970 (97/1970), as amended, provide that (unofficial translation from Greek): Section 8 – Arrest for the purpose of extradition “1. Α warrant may be issued for the arrest of a person being prosecuted for a crime in respect of which extradition may be possible, or in respect of a person required to serve a sentence imposed on him after his conviction for a crime: (a) if authorisation to start the extradition procedure is [given by] a judge of the district court in the jurisdiction of which the said person is (or is believed) to be; (b) [however,] without such authorisation from the president of a district court, then in the event that a complaint ( καταγγελία ) is received alleging that the person in question is in the Republic or is believed to be in the Republic or is on his/her way to the Republic, and a warrant is issued pursuant to subsection (b) of this Law, it shall be referred to as a ‘temporary warrant’. 2. An arrest warrant may be issued on the basis of this section upon presentation of proof that, in the opinion of the judge or president of the district court, justifies the issuance of an arrest warrant ... ...” Section 9 – Extradition proceedings “1. Every person who may have been arrested following a warrant issued on the basis of section 8 shall be brought, as soon as possible (unless he/she has in the meantime been released on the basis of subsection 3 of the said section), before the judge of the district court named on the warrant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the district court in charge of the extradition’). 2. With regard to proceedings carried out pursuant to this section, the district court in charge of the extradition shall, as closely as possible, [follow] the same procedure and [acquire] the same powers as a judge conducting a preliminary investigation – including the power to remand in custody or release on bail the person concerned by the extradition. 3. With regard to proceedings carried out pursuant to this section, the ... court [which is overseeing the extradition proceedings] shall acquire the same powers [as those of a judge conducting a preliminary investigation] – including the power to adjourn a trial, and in the meantime to order the pre-trial detention or the release on bail of the person arrested pursuant to an [arrest] warrant, and the trial shall be conducted in the same manner, as far as possible, as if it were a summary trial of an offence alleged to have been committed by the person in question. ...” Section 10 – Habeas corpus application etc “1. The court, [in the event that] it orders the detention of the person to be extradited on the basis of section 9 – shall immediately inform the interested person, in a language that he understands, of his right to lodge a habeas corpus application with [the Supreme Court], and shall notify without undue delay the Minister [of Justice] of that decision. 2. A person whose detention has been ordered under section 9 cannot, under the present law, be surrendered to a State that requests his extradition (a) in any event, until fifteen days from the day on which the extradition order was issued; [or] (b) in any event, where a habeas corpus application has been lodged, for as long as its examination is pending. 3. The Supreme Court (which shall deal with such a request) can/may, without affecting its jurisdiction, order the release of the person to be extradited if it considers that: (a) owing to the insignificant nature of the offence for which the person is being prosecuted or has been convicted; or (b) owing to the fact that a long time has elapsed since the offence [in question] was committed, or (depending on the circumstances) since the person has been sought in order that he might serve his sentence following his conviction; or (c) owing to the fact that the relevant charges were not brought in good faith or in the interests of justice; the surrender of the person shall constitute, taking into account all the circumstances, an unfair or repressive measure. 4. ... 5. For the purposes of this section, the procedure in respect of the examination of a habeas corpus application shall be considered to be ongoing until the adjudication of any appeal against it, or in the event that the deadline within which such an appeal should be lodged passes without any action being taken ...” Section 11 – Order of extradition “1. In the event that an order is made for the detention of a person for the purpose of his surrender to the State that requested his extradition, and that person is not [subsequently] released on the basis of an order made by the Supreme Court, the Minister may order his surrender to the said State or country, unless his extradition is forbidden ... on the basis of the provisions of section 6 or of this section, or if the Minister decides not to proceed with issuing an extradition order in the said case. ... . ... 6. The person who is to be extradited shall immediately be notified of the issuance of an [extradition] order made on the basis of this section.” Section 12 – Release in the event of delay in extradition “1. Anyone who is being held in the Republic for the purpose of his extradition on the basis of the present Law may – by lodging an application with the Supreme Court – ask to be released once the following deadlines pass ...: (a) in any event, when two months have elapsed after the first day on which, taking into account subsection 2 of section 10, it would have been possible to effect his surrender to the requesting State; (b) after the passage of one month ... following the issuance under section 11 of an order for surrender, [calculated] from the day on which the order for surrender was issued. 2. Once such an application is lodged, the Court – upon being satisfied that the Minister has had sufficient warning – may order the release of the applicant and the annulment of any order issued under section 11, unless sufficient justification to the contrary is provided.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 72.     The applicant complained that the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court had been excessively long and had failed to comply with the “speediness” requirement provided by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “4.     Ever