CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 June 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 53130/20 Dmitriy Vladimirovich CHERTOK against Hungary lodged on 9 November 2020 communicated on 23 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s protracted extradition detention and the absence of any meaningful judicial supervision. On 8 July 2019 the applicant, a Russian citizen, was arrested on the Romanian-Hungarian border on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued by the Russian authorities for fraud. On 10 July 2019 he was placed in provisional extradition arrest by a court. On 7 July 2020 extradition arrest was imposed by the Budapest High Court (upheld on appeal by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 7 August 2020). On 8 July 2021 the applicant was extradited to Russia. He complains of the length of the detention, under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, and of the absence of an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was his two-year long detention with a view to extradition justified for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see Quinn v. France , 22 March 1995, §§ 48-49, Series A no. 311, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 90, 15 December 2016)?   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 (see Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §§   128 ‑ 35)?