issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 365 (2020)
10.12.2020
Detention of Swedish refugee in Slovakia for extradition to Russia unlawful
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.
