CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 21 February 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3745/18 N.O. against Croatia lodged on 17 January 2018 communicated on 1 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention with a view to his extradition from Croatia to Turkey. In 2002 the applicant was arrested in Turkey on terrorist charges related to the activities of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). In September 2003 he had been released from pre-trial detention, after which he fled Turkey. The criminal proceedings against the applicant in Turkey are still pending. After several failed asylum requests in Germany and Switzerland, in 2004 the applicant lodged a new asylum request in Switzerland. In 2005 the request was dismissed by the application of the exclusion clause under the relevant Swiss asylum law because the applicant had participated in activities which had led to killings of persons. However, at the same time his expulsion was deferred given that he otherwise satisfied all the requirements for being granted a refugee status in Switzerland. A certificate issued by the Swiss authorities in July 2017 indicated that the applicant held a status akin to that of a refugee in Switzerland. In the meantime, on 18 July 2017 the applicant was arrested in Croatia based on an international arrest warrant issued by Turkey. The Vukovar County Court dismissed the request based on the applicant’s refugee status in Switzerland, but the Supreme Court quashed that decision. In the fresh round of proceedings, the courts found that the applicant could be extradited to Turkey. On 10 July 2018 the Constitutional Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions on the ground that, having been granted refugee status in Switzerland, the applicant enjoyed protection on the territory of European Union States. It also held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. On 25 July 2018 the authorities dismissed the request for the applicant’s extradition and, after 372 days, released the applicant from detention. The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, that the domestic authorities failed to act with the required diligence, in that they had been informed of his refugee status in Switzerland from the outset and yet kept him in detention for a protracted period of time with a view to extradite him to Turkey. He further complains, invoking Article 6 § 1, about the domestic authorities’ failure to reimburse him the costs of his legal representation in the extradition proceedings, despite his persistent requests.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the applicant’s detention pending extradition in compliance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention?   a) In particular, was the applicant’s detention arbitrary and unlawful from the outset, having regard to his refugee status in Switzerland (see, for instance, Eminbeyli v. Russia , no. 42443/02, § 48, 26 February 2009)?   b) Did the domestic authorities act in a diligent manner when adjudicating the applicant’s case (see, for instance, Shiksaitov v. Slovakia , nos.   56751/16 and 33762/17, §§ 76-84, 10 December 2020)?   2. Was the domestic authorities’ failure to reimburse the applicant costs of his legal representation in the extradition proceedings in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis, mutandis, Zustović v. Croatia , no.   27903/15, §   99, 22 April 2021)?   In particular, did the domestic authorities decide on the applicant’s request for reimbursement of costs? What is the applicable domestic law in the particular situation?