CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF5299C86 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 1 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6690/11 Svetlana Yuryevna BARINOVA against Russia lodged on 11 January 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Svetlana Yuryevna Barinova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and lives in the Moscow Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Artamoshkin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. On 10 December 2010 the applicant was arrested in Moscow on the basis of a search warrant issued by a Ukrainian court on 24 March 2008. On the following day the Yugo-Zapadnyi transport prosecutor remanded her in custody, without setting a time-limit for her detention. On 18 January 2011 the prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention, referring to Article 466 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 9 February 2011 the Khamovnichesky District Court in Moscow granted a further extension. On 6 April 2011 the Russian Prosecutor General granted the extradition request. On 17 May 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld his decision in final instance. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that she was detained without a judicial order. She also complains under Article 5 § 4 that she did not have at her disposal any procedure through which she could initiate judicial review of the lawfulness of her detention.               Questions to the parties   Was the applicant’s detention pending extradition compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (see Shchebet v. Russia , no.   16074/07, §§ 57-79, 12 June 2008, and Dzhurayev v. Russia , no.   38124/07, §§ 55-77, 17 December 2009)? In particular, what was the legal basis for the detention in the absence of a decision from a Russian court? Did she have at her disposal a procedure for judicial review of the lawfulness of her detention?