THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YEGOROV v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 24211/19 and 2444/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yegorov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022,
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 relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention6. The applicant complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). He relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
7. The Court reiterates that 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).
8. In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), or (2) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019, and Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019) have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention.
9. 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 applicant’s detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The applicant 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 findings in its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies).
12. In view of the above findings under, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicant’s remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;Holds that there has been 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 as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
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
(in euros)[1]
24211/19
27/04/2019
AND
2444/20
26/12/2019
Roman Vladimirovich YEGOROV
1979
05/05/2018 7 p.m.
12/06/2019
03/08/2019
06/05/2018 3 p.m.
12/06/2019
05/08/2019
1) Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
2) Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party during all the sets of the administrative proceedings:
Final decisions:
Moscow City Court, 14/11/2018;
Moscow City Court, 08/08/2019;
Moscow City Court, 10/10/2019;
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies –
(1) Opposition manifestation, Moscow, 05/05/2018, Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 14/11/2018;
(2) Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov, Moscow, 12/06/2019, Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, Moscow City Court
10/10/2019;
(3) Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma, Moscow, 03/08/2019, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, 30-day administrative detention, Moscow City Court, 08/08/2019
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.