Information Note on the Court’s case-law 79
October 2005
Fedotov v. Russia - 5140/02
Judgment 25.10.2005 [Section IV]
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Detention after expiry of an arrest warrant: violation
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Conditions of detention in police station: violation
Article 5
Article 5-5
Compensation
Claim for damages for unlawful detention disregarded by domestic courts: violation
Facts: The applicant, who was the president of a non-governmental organisation, was suspected of using his position there for personal gain. In October 1999, the prosecutor charged the applicant and issued an arrest warrant against him. In February 2000, a supervising prosecutor quashed the decision to charge the applicant and cancelled the warrant. His name was nevertheless put on the federal list of wanted persons by the Criminal Police. The applicant was detained at police stations on 14-15 June 2000, and again on 6‑7 July, on the basis of the arrest warrant which had subsequently been cancelled. The applicant complained to the City Prosecutor that he had been unlawfully detained and ill-treated whilst in detention. As a result, disciplinary proceedings were brought against the investigator who had failed to notify the relevant Police Department that the arrest warrant had been cancelled. The applicant also sued the authorities and claimed damages for the unlawful criminal proceedings and arrest. In September 2001, the District Court delivered judgment, finding that the criminal proceedings against him had been unlawful because they had been ultimately discontinued for lack of evidence. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had given an undertaking not to leave the town and had not actually been taken into custody, the court awarded him an amount for damages and costs. The applicant appealed, complaining that the District Court had deliberately given an incomplete account of the circumstances of the case and that his claims for compensation for unlawful detention in June and July 2000 had not been considered in the judgment. The City Court upheld the judgment. In January 2002, the applicant initiated proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of September 2001. After receiving the writ of execution, the applicant complained on several occasions that the amount in the writ was less than the award in the judgment. In 2004, the courts acknowledged that previously issued writs had not conformed to the law on enforcement proceedings. However, to date the judgment has not yet been enforced.
Law: Article 3 – The only account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the police stations was those furnished by him. A failure on a Government’s part to submit information on this without a satisfactory explanation could give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations. (i) The applicant’s detention on 14-15 June 2000: the applicant had provided very few details about the material conditions of his detention at this police station, where he had remained in custody for twelve hours. He did not allege that his physical or mental integrity was imperilled during that period. Accordingly, treatment to which the applicant was subjected to did not attain the minimum level of severity. (ii) The applicant’s detention on 6-7 July 2000: the applicant had remained in this police station for a period of twenty-two hours. His description of this police station coincided with the findings of the CPT. The applicant was kept overnight in a cell unfit for an overnight stay, without food or drink or unrestricted access to a toilet. These unsatisfactory conditions exacerbated the mental anguish caused by the unlawful nature of his detention, and hence the applicant had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Moreover, the authorities had failed to investigate the applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of his detention. Accordingly, there had been a violation of the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 in relation to the applicant’s detention on 6 and 7 July 2000.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5(1) – The parties agreed that the sole ground for the applicant’s arrests was the fact that his name was on the federal list of wanted persons It was not disputed that after February 2000, when the warrant for the applicant’s arrest had been cancelled, there was no further decision – either by a court or a prosecutor – authorising his arrest or detention. Moreover, it had not been claimed either that the applicant’s detention had been effected for one of the purposes listed in Article 5(1). It followed that his arrests in June and July 2000 were not “lawful”, under either domestic law or the Convention. The Court noted with concern that the only reason for the applicant’s arrest had been the lack of cooperation between the competent State authorities, and observed that no records of the arrests appear to have been drawn up.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5(5) – The right to compensation set forth in Article 5(5) presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established. In the present case, the Court has found a violation of Article 5(1) in that there was no “lawful” basis for the applicant’s arrest. The applicant had validly introduced a claim for the damage he had incurred as a result of his unlawful detention. However, the domestic courts had disregarded it. Moreover, the District Court had made arbitrary findings of fact, stating in its judgment that the applicant “had not actually been taken into custody”, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6(1) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – By failing for years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant’s favour the domestic authorities had prevented him from receiving the money to which he was entitled. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy