ARTICLE
8 February 2024

Recent Developments From The Cyprus Courts On The Law Of Extradition

Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC (Clerides Legal)

Contributor

Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC is a leading Cyprus-based law firm founded in 1950 by Phoebus Clerides, former Minister of Justice and Member of Parliament. His son, Dr. Christos Clerides—graduate of King’s College London and former MP, National Council member, and Cyprus Bar Association President—later led the firm. Now under the third generation—Phoebe Cleridou, Alexandros Clerides, and Constantinos Clerides—the firm upholds its legacy of excellence, specialising in litigation and dispute resolution. For over 75 years, it has represented clients in complex cases across all levels of Cypriot courts. Its practice spans civil, commercial, constitutional, administrative, criminal, and human rights law. The firm also advises on corporate, commercial, contractual, real estate, and banking matters with a focus on dispute prevention. With 16 experienced legal professionals, the firm combines tradition with a client-focused approach, earning a strong reputation for advocacy, integrity, and legal precision.
On 11/07/2023, the Appeal Court in Cyprus heard a case where the Russian Federation had requested the extradition of a Russian in order to stand trial for the crime of theft of funds from the federal budget...
Cyprus Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On 11/07/2023, the Appeal Court in Cyprus heard a case where the Russian Federation had requested the extradition of a Russian in order to stand trial for the crime of theft of funds from the federal budget and for knowingly providing false and misleading information when recovering compensation in connection with the known Chernobyl accident.

The accused substantially based his argument requesting his release and non-extradition, on the decision in the Petition for the issuance of DAA v. the Republic of Cyprus in which it was held that the granting of guarantees by the Russian Federation for the conduct of a fair trial, based on the ECHR, could no longer be considered sufficient, precisely because the Russian Federation was in complete isolation from the European legal order and European legal culture, and especially because of the fact that the Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the ECHR and its citizens do not have access to the ECHR. Given this, any assurances from Russia could not be considered satisfactory.

But according to ECtHR caselaw, the burden is on the accused seeking to avoid extradition to prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will suffer torture, or ill-treatment, or that he will not receive a fair trial, or that in general his human rights will be violated. Such danger must be demonstrated by evidence, on the basis of which one can reasonably conclude that the danger is visible and real and not just a mere possibility. In this case, the accused, apart from general problems arising out of the situation in the Russian Federation, did not put forward any allegation demonstrating any risk that any of his rights would be violated if he were handed over to face trial in his home country. It was fatal that it was not pleaded nor proved that his return to the Russian Federation entailed a real risk of adverse treatment, or a violation of his human rights, due to racial, religious, ethnic, political or any other adverse discrimination. For this reason, the applicant was ordered to remain in custody until his extradition to Russia was granted.

More recently on 03/11/2023, the Appeal Court of Cyprus was examining a decision to extradite a well-known Israeli business magnate to Romania following a European Arrest Warrant. The Court found that there was enough evidence and reports before it to find that there is a systemic problem in the prison system of Romania. However, this fact alone is not enough to reject the extradition of a person, but a further question must be answered, whether under the specific circumstances of the case, there is apparent danger that the person might suffer inhumane or degrading treatment in the country to be extradited. The Court answered the second question finding that it cannot rule out the apparent risk that if extradition is granted the accused might face inhumane or degrading treatment during his imprisonment in Romania and therefore extradition was denied and the defendant was released.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More