CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 August 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38449/22 Nataliya KORETSKA against Cyprus lodged on 9 August 2022 communicated on 11 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention between 18 June 2020 and 6 October 2022 for the purpose of her extradition to Ukraine to stand trial. Following an order for her extradition issued on 18 June 2020 (no.   3/2019) the applicant filed a habeas corpus application (no. 71/2020) which was dismissed by the Limassol District Court. The applicant lodged an appeal (no. 231/2020) on 13 August 2020 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14 June 2022. On 26 July 2022 she was informed that her extradition was suspended for two months due to the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. On 7 September 2022 she was informed of a further two ‑ month suspension on the same grounds. According to the Ministry of Justice, the two countries were discussing a new extradition date. The applicant sought a second habeas corpus application (no. 140/22) which was successful on 6 October 2022. The Supreme Court (first instance jurisdiction) considered that the applicant’s detention was no longer justified because no new date had been set for her extradition and because the suspension of the extradition had been based on an uncertain and volatile situation with no foreseeable end-date. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that she was unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of her liberty because of unjustified delays in effectuating her extradition. She further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention of the length of the habeas corpus appeal proceedings (no. 231/2020). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, have the authorities conducted the extradition proceedings with the requisite due diligence (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§   88-91, 15 December 2016, and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009)?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of the habeas corpus appeal proceedings (no. 231/2020), by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her detention, comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 251-56, 4 December 2018 ; Khlaifia and Others , cited above, §§ 128-31, 15 December 2016, and Khokhlov v.   Cyprus , no. 53114/20, § 77, 13 June 2023)?