BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF YEVDOKIMOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 17183/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 September 2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Yevdokimov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 August 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 17183/05) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Aleksey Petrovich
Yevdokimov (“the applicant”), on 12 April 2005.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
23 January 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Saransk, the Republic of
Mordovia.
- On 15 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on
suspicion of theft and detained pending trial. He was allegedly
ill-treated by the police who sought to extract a confession.
- On 6 October 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of
Saransk convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to three
years' imprisonment. However, on 11 February 2004 the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Mordovia quashed his conviction on appeal and
remitted the case for a retrial.
- On 25 May 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of
Saransk again convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to
two years and two months' imprisonment. On 13 October 2004 the
Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence on appeal. The time
spent in detention pending trial was to be counted towards the
sentence. Thus, the applicant would have served his sentence by 15
May 2005.
- On 31 March 2005, following a request for supervisory
review by the applicant, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Mordovia reduced his sentence to two years' imprisonment.
The applicant was present and took part in the supervisory-review
proceedings. Thus, according to article 408 § 3 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure the applicant should have been released
immediately. However, he was returned to the prison. Once the prison
administration received the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme
Court, the applicant was released on 7 April 2005.
- The applicant then brought proceedings for compensation
in respect of the excess time he had spent in prison.
- On 18 May 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Saransk
dismissed his claims. It held that the delay in his release had been
due to the supervisory-review procedure, which had ended on 31 March
2005, and to the fact that the prison administration had not received
the decision of 31 March 2005 of the Presidium of the Supreme
Court until a week later and so were not liable for the additional
period the applicant had spent in prison. On 4 July 2006 the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Mordovia upheld that judgment on appeal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Article
22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides that
everyone shall have the right to freedom and personal inviolability.
Arrest, detention and keeping in custody shall be permissible only
under a court order. A person may not be detained for more than 48
hours without a court order.
- In
accordance with article 408 § 3 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of the Russian Federation a supervisory review ruling under
which a convicted person shall be subject to release from custody
shall be executed to that extent immediately, if the convicted person
is attending the supervisory review proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the period he had spent in detention had
exceeded his final prison sentence by twenty-three days. He relied on
Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty
and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save
in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed
by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after
conviction by a competent court;
...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court considers that the applicant's complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
applicant maintained that following the supervisory-review decision
to reduce his sentence to two years' imprisonment, his sentence had
come to an end on 15 March 2005. However, he was only released on
7 April 2005. Thus, he considered that the excess period of
imprisonment was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention.
- The
Government pointed out that according to domestic law the applicant
should have been released immediately following the decision of the
Presidium of the Supreme Court of 31 March 2005. Thus, they accepted
that the applicant's detention as from that date had no basis in
domestic law and amounted to a violation of the applicant's rights
under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
- The
Court reiterates that by judgment of 25 May 2004, as upheld on appeal
on 13 October 2004, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to two
years and two months' imprisonment starting from 15 March 2003, the
day of his arrest. Accordingly, the applicant would have served his
sentence by 15 May 2005. It follows that until 31 March 2005, when
the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia
examined the case, the applicant's imprisonment was a lawful
detention of a person after conviction by a competent court as
required by Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It is true that
as a result of the supervisory review on 31 March 2005 and the
reduction of his sentence to two years' imprisonment, the applicant
would have had served his sentence by 15 March 2005. Nevertheless,
this subsequent development did not, in the Court's view, make the
detention until 31 March 2005 unlawful within the meaning of Article
5 of the Convention. As regards the remaining period until the
applicant's release on 7 April 2005, the Government admitted that the
applicant's detention had no basis in domestic law and amounted to a
violation of the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 1 of the
Convention.
- The
applicant took note of the Government's admission.
- In
the circumstances of the present case the Court
finds no reason to hold otherwise. It therefore concludes that there
has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on
account of the applicant's detention from 31 March to 7 April
2005.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 3 that he had been ill-treated in
police custody following his arrest, under Article 6 § 1 that
the proceedings against him had been unfair and under Article 13 that
the examination of his appeal against the judgment of 25 May 2004 had
not been sufficiently thorough.
- However,
having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as
these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that
there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of
the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government considered that the claim was unsubstantiated.
- The
Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress and frustration as
a result of the delay in his release and that the non-pecuniary
damage sustained would not sufficiently be compensated for by the
finding of a violation of the Convention. However, the Court finds
the amount claimed by the applicant excessive. Making its assessment
on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 300 under this
head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no
call to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 300 (three hundred
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 September 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
