Communicated on 19 October 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 5748/17
Yevgeniy Valeryevich RYZHOV
against Russia
lodged on 28 December 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Valeryevich Ryzhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Florida, USA.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s deprivation of liberty on 3 and 4 June 2015
The applicant is a practising lawyer admitted to the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Bar. He represented the interests of, among others, two people – Mr Ch. and Mr M. It appears that a criminal investigation into a fraud allegedly committed by those two people was opened in Moscow.
On 3 June 2015 the investigating authorities came to the applicant’s flat in Nizhniy Novgorod and searched it; they were looking for documents related to the fraud. After the search they served the applicant with an order dated 2 June 2015 from the head of the investigation for him to be brought, as a witness, to Moscow (where the head of the investigation was based). The order described the alleged facts of the fraud and gave details of the applicant’s suspected involvement in it. It also read as follows:
“During the preliminary investigation, police officers acting on the request of the investigating authorities and the investigating authorities repeatedly took measures to establish the whereabouts of [the applicant] in order to summon him for an interview, including trying to summon him by means of telephone communication.
Given the above, [and] in view of the need to undertake investigative measures with the participation of witness R. [the applicant], on the basis of ... Article 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[the investigator in charge] orders:
... the bringing of [the applicant] before [the investigating authority] at the address [in Moscow] on 3 June 2015, 6 p.m.”
At about 6 p.m. on 3 June 2015 the police officers put the applicant into a car and took him to Moscow. They arrived in Moscow by 10.30 p.m.; the applicant was then placed in a hotel room. In reply to his questions police officers denied that he had been arrested, but did not allow him to leave and stayed on guard at the entrance to his hotel room. At about 1 a.m. on 4 June 2015 the applicant left the hotel via an escape ladder, went directly to the airport and left Russia. He eventually moved to the USA.
On 16 June 2015 the applicant was put on the wanted list. On 24 July 2015 the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s placement in custody.
2. The applicant’s complaints about his deprivation of liberty on 3 and 4 June 2015
On 23 March 2016 the applicant lodged a complaint regarding the allegedly unlawful actions of the police officers. On 25 April 2016 the District Court returned the applicant’s complaint without examination. Referring to the search and detention orders of 16 June and 24 July 2015, respectively, the District Court expressed “irremovable doubts that the complaint before it [had] really been signed by [the applicant]” and refused to examine it.
On 14 June 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal against the District Court’s decision of 25 April 2016. He enclosed a declaration by a US notary certifying the applicant’s identity and his signature on the appeal documents.
On 22 August 2016 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) refused to hear the applicant’s appeal. The City Court held that the applicant was on the wanted list and his whereabouts had not been established; thus, the authenticity of his signature on the appeal was doubtful.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under Article 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a suspect, an accused person, a victim or a witness does not comply with a summons without a valid excuse, he or she may be brought before the relevant authority or officer. The bringing of the person concerned before the relevant authority cannot be undertaken during the night time, except in urgent situations.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his deprivation of liberty on 3 and 4 June 2015 was unlawful and arbitrary. In particular, he complains that his being brought to the investigating authority during the night time and without a proper record being made breached national legal requirements. The applicant further complains that his forced transportation to Moscow was arbitrary because he had never received any summons to appear for an interview, even though his residence and professional addresses had been well known to the authorities. The applicant also complains that his detention in the hotel room does not fall within any grounds permissible under Article 5 § 1 (a-f) of the Convention.
The applicant lastly complains about the national courts’ refusal to examine his complaints regarding his deprivation of liberty on 3 and 4 June 2015.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of liberty on 3 and 4 June 2015, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, did the applicant’s detention fall under one of the permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty under subparagraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
What was the legal basis for the detention?
Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?
In particular, was the applicant’s detention properly based on an order by the relevant authority, and was it recorded, as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention been breached on account of the decisions of the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow and the Moscow City Court not to examine his complaints?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy