FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF D.S. v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 82348/17)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
15 February 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of D.S. v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 82348/17) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 7 December 2017 by a Turkmen national, D.S. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Krasnodar and was represented by Mr A. Ghazaryan and Ms M. Baghdasaryan, lawyers practising in Yerevan;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of speedy review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending extradition to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 25 January 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged failure of the Criminal Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) to carry out a speedy review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending extradition. 2. The applicant, a Turkmen national who was facing criminal prosecution in his home country, was arrested upon his arrival at the Zvartnots International Airport and on 1 September 2017 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) ordered his detention pending extradition. 3. On 6 September 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision. By letter of 7 September 2017, the Court of Appeal asked the District Court to transfer the case file to it, which the latter did on 15 September 2017. The Court of Appeal received the case file on 20 September 2017, took over the applicant’s appeal on 22 September 2017 and set a hearing for 25 September 2017. 4. According to the relevant audio recording of the court hearing of 25 September 2017, it had been impossible to ensure the applicant’s presence in court due the strict time-limits to review a detention decision. The presiding judge enquired from the applicant’s representative whether she would like to have the case adjourned because of the applicant’s absence. The representative replied that the applicant had expressed his wish to be present at the appeal hearing and thus she agreed to the adjournment. Then the prosecutor informed the court that the applicant had dismissed his representative and had appointed a new one. The Court of Appeal, while noting that the case should be adjourned to ensure the applicant’s new representative’s presence, went on to conclude that the case was being adjourned because of the applicant’s absence and that a summons would be sent to the new representative for the hearing set for 28 September 2017. The Court of Appeal asked the prosecutor if they could ensure the applicant’s presence for the following hearing or the court should assist them in that matter. In reply, the prosecutor requested the court to send a summons to the Nubarashen Remand Prison where the applicant had been held and, at the same time, undertook to ensure that the applicant attend the following hearing. 5. According to the relevant audio recording of the court hearing of 28 September 2017, the applicant’s presence had not been ensured due to a technical reason. After enquiring from the applicant’s lawyer if he would prefer to have the hearing postponed due to the applicant’s absence, to which the lawyer agreed, the Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing until 4 October 2017. On the last-mentioned date it dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 6. On 8 December 2017 the applicant lodged a request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court asking the Court to, inter alia, prevent his removal to Turkmenistan. On the same date the Court decided to grant the applicant’s request under Rule 39 to stay his extradition. 7. The District Court extended the applicant’s detention twice, in particular on 26 October and then on 22 December 2017. 8. On 27 December 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal against the last-mentioned decision. By letter of 28 December 2017, the Court of Appeal requested the case file from the District Court. 9. On 16 January 2018 the applicant asked the District Court to transfer the case file to the Court of Appeal as soon as possible, pointing out that the excessive delay in considering his appeal against his detention was in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 10. On 17 January 2018 the District Court forwarded the case file to the Court of Appeal, which received it and took over the applicant’s appeal on 18 January 2018. It set a court hearing for 22 January 2018. 11. According to the relevant audio recording of the appeal hearing of 22 January 2018, the Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing to obtain a translation of the Court’s letter informing the Government about the interim measure applied in the applicant’s case. The applicant agreed to the adjournment. 12. On the next hearing, that is 25 January 2018, the Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing once again so that the parties would study the translation of the aforementioned letter of the Court. It set the next court hearing on 30 January 2018. The Government claimed that the Court of Appeal had adjourned the hearing of 30 January 2018 until 7 February 2018 because it fell on a non-working day. On the last-mentioned date the Court of Appeal retired to the deliberations room to adopt a decision which was delivered on 8 February 2018. In particular, the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal and ordered his release. 13. On 1 July 2019 the applicant obtained refugee status and asylum in Armenia. On 25 May 2020 the Court lifted the interim measure indicated on 8 December 2017.

Outcome for Article 5: violation