Filenews 18 March 20225
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) awarded damages of €15,000 for non-pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as €3,800 for legal costs, to a Russian fugitive who had been detained and extradited by the Cypriot authorities.
The Law Office of the Republic studied the Court's decision, which was delivered on February 27, 2025.
A statement said:
"On 27 February 2025, the ECtHR issued a judgment in relation to the individual application of Dzhandzhgava v. Cyprus, making a finding of violation of Articles 5§1 and 5§4 (Right to personal liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This is a detention order issued against a Russian fugitive (applicant) until his extradition is obtained by the Cypriot authorities. The purpose was for him to be tried in Russia for the offence of fraud on a large scale, namely, theft of property from another person by means of fraud and breach of trust, among others. His total detention lasted almost 3 years, which also covered the restrictive measures in force at the time due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The subject of the applicant's appeal before the ECtHR was the detention order issued against him by the Limassol District Court, combined with his alleged illegality, allegedly violating the applicant's right to liberty, as it derives from Article 5§1 of the ECHR. Specifically, the applicant complained of illegal and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, in unpleasant/unsatisfactory detention conditions, for too long beyond the deadlines provided by national law and for reasons not allowed under the exception of Article 5§1 (f) of the ECHR, such as the coronavirus pandemic.
He also complained of a violation of Article 5§4 of the ECHR in relation to the duration of the appeal procedure, claiming that it had not been conducted with the required speed.
In relation to the first part of the complaint (Article 5§1), the ECtHR accepted most of the applicant's allegations regarding the illegality of his detention, with the exception of the allegation of unsatisfactory detention conditions if he had not provided sufficient evidence to that effect. As the ECtHR observed, the applicant, for most of his detention (two years, five months and twenty-six days), was detained in connection with court proceedings through which he challenged his detention, while the appeal process (habeas corpus) lasted two years, two months and fifteen days. Despite the applicant's own contribution to the various delays in his appeal through the filing of consecutive interim applications in a borderline abusive manner, as the ECtHR itself stated, the Court could not ignore the prolonged periods of inactivity.
In relation to the period of detention of the applicant (five months and twenty-three days), which followed the rejection of his appeal by the Supreme Court, the ECtHR referred to its previous case law (Khokhlov v. Cyprus), criticizing the decision of the Cypriot authorities to suspend the extradition of the applicant until further notice, in the absence of an already agreed date for his surrender to the Russian authorities. as the relevant obligation arising from the European Convention on Extradition (ratified by the Republic by Law 95/70). This decision of the Cypriot authorities deprived the applicant of the procedural guarantees available to him under the same legislation.
Regarding the second part of the complaint (Article 5§4), the ECtHR accepted the applicant's complaint in relation to the delay and/or lack of the required speed in the hearing of his appeal, despite the fact that it also acknowledged his share of responsibility. This is because, according to the case-law of the ECtHR, the conduct of an applicant during the relevant proceedings is only one of the many factors taken into account.
In relation to the issue of just satisfaction, the ECtHR awarded the applicant the amounts of €15,000 and €3,800 for non-pecuniary damage/non-pecuniary damage and court costs, respectively."
