CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 June 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6865/22 Ahmet KESKIN against North Macedonia lodged on 1 February 2022 communicated on 27 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention pending extradition to Romania, where he had been convicted in 2010. On 2 August 2021 a pre-trial judge heard the applicant (a Turkish national) through a court interpreter and ordered his detention. The judge established that the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer had agreed that the applicant be detained in view of his extradition and had waived the applicant’s right to appeal against the detention order. The applicant’s subsequent appeal lodged through a lawyer appointed by his wife was rejected as lodged out of time. The domestic courts at two levels subsequently allowed the applicant’s extradition, finding that he had consented to be extradited in summary proceedings and not giving weight to the arguments raised in his appeal that the enforcement of the prison sentence imposed in Romania was time-barred. After the applicant’s transfer to Romania in October 2021, he was released on 26 November 2021 given that the Romanian courts at two levels had established in November 2021 that the enforcement of his sentence had become time-barred. Under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that in the proceedings concerning the order for his detention pending extradition his court-appointed lawyer refused to meet him in private, agreed to summary extradition proceedings and waived the applicant’s right to appeal. He further complains that the interpretation was inadequate, that neither the court interpreter nor the court-appointed lawyer replied to his questions at the hearing held on 2   August 2021 and that his statements were wrongly entered in the hearing record. Lastly, he complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, as the enforcement of his sentence was time-barred. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention in relation to his complaint under Article   5 § 1 of the Convention (see Janakieski v. North Macedonia , nos.   57325/19 and 16291/20, §§ 53-54, 14 November 2023)?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has his detention pending extradition been justified within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see J.N. v. the United Kingdom , no. 37289/12, §§ 75 et seq., 19 May 2016; see also, mutatis mutandis , Galeano Peñas v. Spain , no. 48784/20, §§ 66-69, 31   May 2022)?   3. Was the applicant informed, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia , no. 36378/02, §§ 413-14, ECHR 2005-III)?   4.     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 (see   Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 128 ‑ 30, 15 December 2016; J.N. v. the United Kingdom , cited above, §   88; and, mutatis mutandis , Černák v. Slovakia , no. 36997/08, § 78 in fine , 17   December 2013)? In particular, did he have the effective assistance of a lawyer and of an interpreter in the relevant proceedings (see, in the context of Article 6 § 3 of the Convention, Vamvakas v. Greece (no. 2) , no. 2870/11, §§ 36-37, 9 April 2015; Vizgirda v. Slovenia , no. 59868/08, § 79, 28   August 2018; and Knox v. Italy , no. 76577/13, §§ 182-84, 24 January 2019)?