Published on 27 March 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 52342/20
Igor Olegovich LAVROV against Russia
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 March 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER
The applications concern the complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see 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).
APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS
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
52342/20*
23/04/2021
Igor Olegovich LAVROV
1982
06/12/2019, 6.22 p.m.
07/12/2019, 2.05 a.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)
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 v. Russia, § 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 judgment of the Supreme Court of Russia of 11/02/2021
22876/21*
01/04/2021
Ramzil Gazinurovich GALIMZYANOV
1982
Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov
Kazan
23/12/2020,
1 p.m.
23/12/2020, 9 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). The applicant was 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
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The applicant started to serve his sentence of 14 days’ administrative arrest immediately after the judgment in his case was delivered by the court at first level of jurisdiction; lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (Tsvetkova and Others)
22990/21*
08/04/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MEDOV
1977
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov
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 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 evidence was furnished by the courts to support their findings that the applicant would abscond or re-offend
24881/21
10/05/2021
Yelena Ivanovna SKOROBOGATOVA
1970
Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya
Strasbourg
22/05/2020
25/05/2020
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 on domestic level as the applicant’s belated release had not been acknowledged as unlawful in the domestic proceedings
37025/21*
03/07/2021
Ivan Viktorovich BELAVKIN
1972
Aleksandr Vitalyevich Urychev
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. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention in conjunction with Article 5 § 1
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 (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012), Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk 29/07/2021 and 28/09/2021, upheld by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 31/08/2021 and 08/11/2021, respectively