003-6880537-9230222

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 365 (2020)   10.12.2020   Detention of Swedish refugee in Slovakia for extradition to Russia unlawful   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Shiksaitov v. Slovakia (application no. 56751/16) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 5 § 5 (enforceable right to   compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and detention with a view to   his extradition to Russia, despite his having refugee status in Sweden.   The Court found in particular that the applicant’s arrest and the individual detention orders had   complied with Slovak law and the Convention. However, the overall length that the applicant had   been held had been overlong and the grounds for his detention had ceased to be valid, breaching his   rights. The Court also found that the applicant had not had an enforceable right to compensation for   the above breach.   Principal facts   The applicant, Hamzat Shiksaitov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Alvesta   (Sweden).   On 12 July 2007 an international arrest warrant for the applicant was issued by a court in the   Chechen Republic in Russia. He was alleged to have committed acts of terrorism. In 2011 the   applicant fled from Ukraine to Sweden, fearing extradition from the former. He was granted asylum   in Sweden. In 2015 the applicant was arrested in Slovakia en route to Ukraine as he was on Interpol’s   international watch list.   The Košice Regional Court ordered the applicant’s preliminary detention until the circumstances   surrounding his status in Sweden could be determined. That decision was upheld following an   interlocutory appeal and later by the Constitutional Court, which also stated that his rights had not   been infringed.   On 23 February 2015 the applicant was placed in detention pending extradition to Russia. The   applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal, arguing that Slovakia was bound by the Swedish courts’   decision on his refugee status. That appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, a decision later   confirmed by the Constitutional Court.   On 8 September 2016 the applicant’s extradition to Russia was ordered. The Regional Court noted,   in particular, that refugees did not automatically enjoy immunity from prosecution (because the   applicant was wanted for a serious non-political crime in this case) and that it was satisfied with the   general guarantees given by the Russian authorities.   The Constitutional Court then dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant. They remitted   the case to the lower-level to establish whether the applicant should have been excluded from being   accorded the status of refugee.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   The Supreme Court later overturned the decision of 8 September 2016 and ordered the applicant’s   release on 2 November 2016. The border police expelled the applicant to Sweden.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation)of   the Convention, the applicant complained that his arrest and detention in Slovakia had violated his   right to liberty.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 September 2016.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ksenija Turković (Croatia), President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Péter Paczolay (Hungary),   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),   and also Abel Campos, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The applicant argued that his arrest had not been in compliance with Slovak law, in particular the   Police Corps Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. He argued that as Russia had not requested his   detention, and as he had been a refugee in Sweden, his preliminary detention and detention   pending extradition should not have been ordered.   The Court reiterated that deprivation of liberty must be “lawful”. However, compliance with national   law is not sufficient; the decision must be taken in good faith, and for the grounds given, and   detention must not be too long. In particular, detention related to extradition must be reasonably   considered necessary.   The Court was satisfied that the applicant’s preliminary arrest had been lawful, as the Slovak   authorities could not have been aware of the applicant’s status in Sweden.   Likewise, the Court considered that the applicant’s preliminary detention had been lawful, despite   the lack of a request from the Russian authorities, as in Slovakia preliminary detention only had to   be ordered by a prosecutor.   Regarding the applicant’s detention pending extradition, the Court agreed with the domestic courts   that that detention had not been fundamentally proscribed, as the Swedish authorities’ decisions   had not been binding on Slovakia. Furthermore, it was acceptable for the Slovak authorities to have   examined the applicant’s case thoroughly, especially given that the Swedish authorities had not   checked his status with Interpol. Overall, the applicant’s detention had been justified by the need to   keep him in Slovakia with a view to determining whether there had been any legal or factual   impediments to the applicant’s extradition.   Overall the applicant’s detention had lasted one year, nine months and eighteen days. This is despite   the fact that the authorities had had information concerning the applicant’s status in Sweden and his   prosecution in Russia from a very early stage and that nothing had prevented the courts from   reaching a final decision on the admissibility of the applicant’s extradition much earlier than they in   fact had done.   In the light of the above, the Court concluded that the authorities had not acted with diligence, and   the grounds for the applicant’s detention had ceased to be valid. This had led to a violation of   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court also judged that the applicant had not had an enforceable right to compensation for his   unlawful detention, in violation of Article 5 § 5.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Slovakia was to pay the applicant EUR 1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage   and EUR 8,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   During the new lockdown, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via   [email protected]oe.int.   Neil Connolly   Tracey Turner-Tretz   Denis Lambert   Inci Ertekin   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3