THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38372/13
Gevorg Gagikovich ALIVORYAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2013,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Gevorg Gagikovich Alivoryan, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Artashat. He was represented before the Court by Mr Z.Z. Gabriyelyan, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 8 June 2011 the applicant was apprehended by police in his residence in St Petersburg on suspicion of infliction of grave bodily injuries on Mr N. He was detained in the 41st Police Station of Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg.
4. On 8 and 9 June 2011 the applicant was interrogated and signed interrogation records containing self-incriminating statements.
5. On 10 June 2011 the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention relying on his statements to the police, gravity of the crime, absence of registered residence and place of work, as well as his foreign citizenship. The applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was extended on a monthly basis by the courts reviewing continuing validity of the advanced reasons.
6. On 3 November 2011 the applicant was released under personal guarantee (личное поручительство) provided by Mr Kh.
7. On 6 December 2011 the Head of the Investigative Department of the Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg terminated criminal proceedings against the applicant due to absence of evidence demonstrating his complicity in the crime. The decision stated that the applicant had the right to rehabilitation.
8. The applicant initiated proceedings seeking award of non-pecuniary damages for unlawful prosecution in the amount of approximately 25,000 euros (EUR).
9. On 13 September 2012 the Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg ruled in favour of the applicant in part. Having regard to the applicant’s detention of four and a half months and overall criminal prosecution of six months the District Court awarded 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (EUR 2,500) in non-pecuniary damages. The trial court referred to the charges against the applicant as “unlawful”, but neither classified the applicant’s detention in the same manner nor examined the reason for it.
10. The applicant appealed alleging unreasonableness of the amount of awarded damages; however the appeal was dismissed on 24 January 2013 by the St Petersburg City Court.
B. Relevant domestic law
11. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation of 2001, which entered into force on 1 July 2002, provides in Article 133 that a suspect or an accused is entitled to full compensation of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damages caused by criminal prosecution if the latter was terminated on rehabilitating grounds, including absence of evidence demonstrating complicity in crime. Article 136 of the Code provides that consideration of lawsuits for recovery of damages fall under jurisdiction of civil courts.
12. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation of 2002, which entered into force on 1 February 2003, provides in Article 1070 that damage caused to a person by inter alia unlawful prosecution and pre-trial detention shall be compensated by the Treasury in full irrespective of the guilt of investigative, prosecutorial or judicial authorities.
COMPLAINT
13. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he was unlawfully detained pending trial and that the amount of compensation provided to him was insufficient to remedy the alleged violation.
THE LAW
14. The Court reiterates at the outset that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çağdaş Şahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
15. In the instant case the Court is prevented, by operation of the six‑month time-limit (see paragraph 6 above), from examining the period of the applicant’s detention in 2011 (see Abashev v. Russia, no. 9096/09, § 35, 27 June 2013). In these circumstances, it will have to examine the findings of the domestic courts in respect of that period with a view to determining whether they established, expressly or implicitly, a breach of one of the four paragraphs of Article 5 (compare Shulgin v. Ukraine, no. 29912/05, §§ 46‑47, 8 December 2011). In this respect the Court notes that the applicant’s detention was neither classified by the domestic courts as “unlawful” nor examined from the standpoint of reason which had justified it.
16. The Court concludes that no breach of one of the four paragraphs of Article 5 of the Convention has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention must be dismissed under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
17. Lastly, the Court notes that the applicant did not raise any complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in his original application, and therefore they were not communicated to the Government and the Government did not comment on them. In his observations, the applicant made new submissions regarding the alleged violations of the above provisions. The Court considers that these complaints lodged later in the proceedings do not constitute a mere elaboration on his original complaints to the Court, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with this newly raised matter in the present case (see Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, §§ 69-70, 6 December 2011, with further references).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 March 2018.
Fatoş AracıLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy