CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } 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?