THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50952/11
Tatyana Dmitriyevna BOLSHAKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 December 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2011,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Tatyana Dmitriyevna Bolshakova, is a Russian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Chita. She was represented before the Court by Ms O. Shcherbina, a lawyer practising in Krasnodar.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Chita.
On 26 April 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter and arson. On 28 April 2007 she was remanded in custody.
On 28 December 2007 she was released on an undertaking not to leave her place of residence.
On 8 December 2008 the Ingodinskiy District Court of the Chita Region convicted the applicant of arson and gave her a two-year suspended prison sentence. At the same time she was acquitted of manslaughter.
On 16 March 2009 the Chita Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction for arson on appeal, quashed the manslaughter acquittal and ordered a retrial on that charge.
On 31 August 2009 the District Court convicted the applicant of manslaughter and sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment.
On 10 December 2009 the Zabaykalskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
On 17 March 2011 the Presidium of the Regional Court, following a supervisory review complaint by the applicant, quashed the judgment of 31 August 2009 and the appeal judgment of 10 December 2009 and remitted the applicant’s case for fresh examination. The applicant was ordered to remain in custody pending the retrial on the grounds that she had been accused of serious crimes. Referring to the seriousness of the charges, the courts extended her pre-trial detention, noting that she might reoffend, abscond or threaten witnesses.
On 5 May 2012 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor and released the applicant.
On 10 August 2012 criminal proceedings against her were discontinued. The applicant was advised of her right to rehabilitation, including a right to receive compensation for the criminal prosecution against her.
By a decision of 3 December 2012, upheld on appeal, the Tsentralniy District Court of Chita awarded her 500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage as follows:
“... the court finds it established that [the applicant] has been unlawfully prosecuted and detained ... the court considers that such a long period of pre-trial detention (about three and a half years), ... criminal investigation, interrogation, conviction and imprisonment have caused suffering to [the applicant].”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of lengthy and unjustified pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that her pre-trial detention had been excessively long and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Article 5 § 3 provides as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
The Government submitted that the applicant had lost her status as a victim of a violation of her rights as the domestic authorities had acknowledged that her pre-trial detention had been lengthy and she had received sufficient compensation. They also stated that the applicant had failed to inform the Court about developments in her case.
The applicant maintained her complaint.
The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of the status of a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, a breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999‑VI).
In the present case, the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and informed her of her right to rehabilitation. On 3 December 2012 the domestic court awarded the applicant compensation, stating that she had been unlawfully prosecuted and that her pre-trial detention had been excessively long. The Court therefore notes that the domestic courts unequivocally acknowledged that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been excessive in its duration.
The Court notes that the applicant was awarded RUB 500,000 (approximately 12,440 euros) for her suffering. That sum exceeds the amount of compensation usually awarded by the Court in similar cases. Such an award can be considered as constituting redress for the violation of the Convention right alleged by her in the present application.
It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” of a violation of her rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and that her application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2017.
Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy