FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LAVROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 52342/20 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lavrov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.JURISDICTION
6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III).
9. In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101‑11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, related to lengthy review of detention; Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 78-87, 28 October 2010, concerning lack of, or inadequate, compensation in respect of unlawful detention; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, regarding the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention.
13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints lodged by Mr Belavkin (application nos. 37025/21) under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers that the finding of a violation in application no. 24881/21 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). It further finds reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of lack of domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms (application no. 37025/21);Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 24881/21; Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start date of unauthorised detention
End date of unauthorised detention
Specific defects
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
52342/20
23/04/2021
Igor Olegovich LAVROV
1982
06/12/2019, 6:22 p.m.
07/12/2019, 2:05 a.m.
Conviction of drug possession by the Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver, 31/03/2021, where the applicant raised the issue of his unacknowledged detention. He also raised the issue of his unrecorded detention trying to open a criminal investigation in respect of the police officers. On 09/10/2020 the request to open the criminal investigation was dismissed, the refusal was further annulled by a prosecutor on 11/11/2020.
The final decision was received by the applicant on 07/03/2022: the criminal case in respect of the police officers was opened and then closed on 10/12/2020 and 28/06/2021.
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)
3,000
18771/21
05/03/2021
Aleksandr Alekseyevich MASHYANOV
1989
26/04/2016, 8.30 a.m.
28/04/2016,
1.05 p.m.
Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others, cited above, § 82)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the applicant was afforded compensation of
RUB 8,000 (approximately
EUR 95); the final decision was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 11/02/2021.
3,900
22876/21
01/04/2021
Ramzil Gazinurovich GALIMZYANOV
1982
Kabirov Rushan Rafisovich
Kazan
23/12/2020,
1 p.m.
23/12/2020,
9 p.m.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record:
no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision issued on 29/12/2020 by the Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, administrative arrest of 14 days;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The applicant started serving his sentence of 14 days’ administrative arrest immediately after the judgment in his case was delivered by the court at the first level of jurisdiction; lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
3,900
22990/21
08/04/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MEDOV
1977
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
24/02/2021, 5.30 p.m.
25/02/2021,
3.05 p.m.
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79,
26 June 2018)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Pre-trial detention from to 24/02/2021 to 16/12/2021 - Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis. The applicant, a deputy head of the regional customs office, was charged with bribery. He was employed, had permanent place of residence, pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecution. Apart from the seriousness of the charges, no facts were furnished by the courts to support their findings that the applicant would abscond or re-offend.
3,900
24881/21
10/05/2021
Yelena Ivanovna SKOROBOGATOVA
1970
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
22/05/2020
25/05/2020
The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts under Art. 125 CCrP complaining about the unlawful detention and inaction of investigators which resulted in her belated release. On 16/11/2020 the Leninskiy District Court of Yaroslavl rejected her claim. On 19/02/2021 the appellate court returned the case to the first‑instance court. On 05/03/2021 the Leninskiy District Court refused to examine the case as the criminal proceedings against the
applicant had been brought before a court.
Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no grounds to claim compensation at the domestic level as the applicant’s belated release had not been acknowledged as unlawful in the domestic proceedings.
The finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction
37025/21
03/07/2021
Ivan Viktorovich BELAVKIN
1972
Urychev Aleksandr Vitalyevich
Chelyabinsk
03/06/2021, 8.30 a.m.
03/06/2021,
12.40 p.m.
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention;
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was placed in a metal cage during the hearing at the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinks on 03/06/2021;
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lack of speediness of review of – detention orders of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk issued on 29/07/2021 and 28/09/2021, were upheld by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 31/08/2021 and 08/11/2021, respectively
9,750
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy