Information Note on the Court’s case-law 220
July 2018
Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia - 52241/14 and 74222/14
Judgment 10.7.2018 [Section III]
Article 5
Article 5-5
Compensation
Failure to adequately compensate persons subjected to wrongful domestic imprisonment: violation
Facts – The applicants complained that the quantum of damages awarded by the domestic courts for their wrongful imprisonment was so small as to impair the very essence of their right under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.
Law – Article 5 § 5: The domestic courts had established in substance that Mr Vasilevskiy had been deprived of his liberty for one and a half years as a result of a gross and obvious irregularity and that Mr Bogdanov’s unlawful conviction had been the consequence of a flagrant denial of justice undermining the lawfulness of his ensuing detention. Article 5 § 5 was therefore applicable.
The domestic courts had attempted, in good faith and to the best of their ability, to assess the level of suffering, distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicants by reason of their unlawful imprisonment. Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with the domestic legal requirements and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that resulted in awards of amounts that were lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases. Mr Vasilevskiy had been awarded EUR 3,320 for the 472 days during which he had been unlawfully detained and Mr Bogdanov EUR 324 for the 119 days during which he had been unlawfully detained which amounted to the respective rates of EUR 7 and EUR 2.70 per day of wrongful deprivation of liberty. That level of compensation was not merely substantially lower than the Court’s awards in similar cases but also disproportionate to the duration of their detention and negligible in absolute terms. The sums awarded were so low as to undermine the essence of the applicants’ enforceable right to compensation.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In addition, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of compensation proceedings, if requested, and a new assessment of the applicants’ claim, in compliance with the requirements of that provision and the Court’s case-law. This was a legal possibility domestically.
© 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