Communicated on 3 April 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 40151/14
Yevgeniy Viktorovich TARKHANOV against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. The case of Mr Tarkhanov
On 22 November 2004 the Sayanogorsk Town Court in the Khakassiya Republic fixed the opening date for Mr Tarkhanov’s trial and extended the authorised period of his pre-trial detention. On 2 December 2004 he was convicted of theft and murder and given a custodial sentence.
On 8 August 2013 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic quashed the Town Court’s decision in the part relating to the detention matter on the ground that it had been unlawfully issued in the absence of Mr Tarkhanov and his counsel.
Mr Tarkhanov sued the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for the period of unlawful detention from 22 November 2004 until the pronouncement of the conviction. By judgment of 16 September 2013, as upheld on appeal on 27 November 2013, the Abakan Town Court rejected his claim, holding that he was not eligible for compensation because he had been found guilty and given a custodial sentence.
B. The case of Mr Vasilevskiy
Mr Vasilevskiy stayed in detention for longer that he should have because of an error in the calculation of the overall duration of his sentence. As a consequence, he was unlawfully detained from 26 February 2006 until 13 June 2007.
On 13 December 2013 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court in the Amur Region awarded him 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (3,320 euros (EUR)) as compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 28 February 2014 the Amur Regional Court rejected his appeal.
C. The case of Mr Bogdanov
Mr Bogdanov overstayed three months and twenty-nine days in custody following an adjustment of his sentence by way of supervisory review. He sued for compensation.
On 13 March 2014 the Valdayskiy District Court in the Novgorod Region awarded him RUB 80,000 (EUR 1,576) but the award was reduced to RUB 15,000 (EUR 324) by the appeal judgment of the Novgorod Regional Court dated 9 July 2014.
D. The case of Mr Kholodkov
On 28 August 2007 Mr Kholodkov was convicted of shoplifting and given a suspended sentence conditional on one year’s probation. On 3 December 2008 a court replaced the suspended sentence with the custodial one because Mr Kholodkov had persistently failed to report to the probation authorities. He spent one year in a correctional facility.
On 17 January 2014 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic pronounced the decision of 3 December 2008 to have been unlawful since by the time it was given the conviction had already been spent.
By judgment of 24 July 2014, as upheld on appeal on 13 October 2014, the Pervomayskiy District Court in the Udmuritya Republic awarded Mr Kholodkov RUB 100,000 (EUR 2,117) in respect of non-pecuniary damages.
E. The case of Mr Shakirzyanov
On 4 June 2002 Mr Shakirzyanov was convicted of disorderly acts and given a suspended two-year custodial sentence conditional on two years’ probation. On 14 November 2003 a court replaced the suspended sentence with an unconditional one because Mr Shakirzyanov had persistently failed to report to the probation authorities. On 16 December 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld that decision on appeal. Mr Shakirzyanov subsequently served his two-year sentence in a penal colony.
On 13 July 2016 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic quashed the decision of 14 November 2003 and the appeal decision of 16 December 2003, noting that, following decriminalisation of the offence of disorderly acts on 11 December 2003, the original sentence was no longer enforceable. It held however that Mr Shakirzyanov was not eligible for compensation for the unlawful detention because the “right to the rehabilitation” did not extend to situations of ex post facto decriminalisation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain in substance under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that compensation for a period of unlawful detention was either refused or awarded in a negligible amount.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
As regards each case, did the domestic courts establish, expressly or implicitly, a breach of one of the four paragraphs of Article 5 (see Vasiliy Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 16264/05, § 74, 19 February 2013; Roman Petrov v. Russia, no. 37311/08, § 45, 15 December 2015, and Kleyn v. Russia, no. 44925/06, § 29, 5 January 2016)? Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention? In cases where an award was made, was its amount sufficient to consider that the right in question was “practical and effective” (see Cumber v. the United Kindgom, no. 28779/95, Commission decision of 27 November 1996)?
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
40151/14
13/05/2014
Yevgeniy Viktorovich TARKHANOV
12/08/1980
Abakan
52241/14
13/07/2014
Aleksandr Valeryevich VASILEVSKIY
23/06/1973
Blagoveshchensk
74222/14
07/11/2014
Yan Aleksandrovich BOGDANOV
24/05/1981
Valday
Arsen Sergeyevich MELKUMOV
20655/15
10/04/2015
Sergey Vitalyevich KHOLODKOV
07/08/1987
Izhevsk
50650/16
15/08/2016
Rustam Maykarimovich SHAKIRZYANOV
03/01/1967
Kazan
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy