THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ZAUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 25697/13, 48185/13 and 62442/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zaushkin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date.
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 25697/13, 48185/13 and 62442/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Zaushkin, Mr Oleg Ivanovich Kornev and Mr Stanislav Vikorovich Butenko (“the applicants”), on 1 April, 8 July and 16 September 2013, respectively.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 2 December 2014 and 21 September 2015 the applications were communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant Mr Zaushkin was held in custody without a judicial order from 5 November 2012 when the detention order of 17 May had expired, and until 19 November when a new detention order was issued.
5. In case of the applicant Mr Kornev, the 25 April 2013 the court had ordered his transfer from the remand prison under house arrest but he was not transferred until 16 May.
6. The applicant Mr Butenko remained in custody after the court had ordered his release on 25 April 2013 until a higher court overturned the release order on 11 July.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The applicants complained about the periods in which their detention had not been covered by a judicial order. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save ... in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ...”
A. The Government’s request for the case to be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention
9. The Government submitted unilateral declarations inviting the Court to strike the cases out of its list. They acknowledged that the periods of the detention which the applicants complained about had been in breach of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention and offered to pay a sum of money.
10. The applicants did not accept the Government’s offer.
11. Having studied the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government have acknowledged a breach of the applicants’ right to liberty and security. However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in cases featuring complaints about unlawful detention (see, for recent examples, Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, 27 June 2013; Sergey Chebotarev v. Russia, no. 61510/09, 7 May 2014; Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, 13 March 2014; Eduard Shabalin v. Russia, no. 1937/05, 16 October 2014). Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case.
12. For the above reasons, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the case out of its list under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaint.
B. Admissibility
13. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
C. Merits
14. The Court notes that the applicants were detained without a judicial order or any other legal basis in the following periods:
(a)Mr Zaushkin from 5 to 19 November 2012;
(b)Mr Kornev from 25 April to 16 May 2013;
(c)Mr Butenko from 25 April to 11 July 2013.
15. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ detention in the above periods.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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.”
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law in similar cases (cited in paragraph 11 above), the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, 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 18 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy