Last Updated on October 13, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicant complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CHERNOZUB v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 8777/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Chernozub v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 December 2011.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Sharapov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention
6. The applicant complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). He relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, 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:
…
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.]”
7. In the leading cases of Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s detention at the police station after the preparation of the administrative offence record was not justified and was in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Russian law.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; and Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations).
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Saidov v. Russia [Committee], no. 31872/19, § 23, 26 July 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
13. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);
3. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
__________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
| 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 | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] |
| 8777/12 29/12/2011 |
VsevolodInnokentyevich CHERNOZUB 1986 |
IlnurIlgizovichSharapov Moscow |
05/12/2011 | 06/12/2011 | Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled | Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – Picket Moscow, Novopushkinskiyskver 16/06/2012 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine RUB 15,000 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 07/08/2012; Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Administrative detention for 15 days for a manifestation following the elections to the State Duma in Moscow on 05/12/2011; final decision of Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow of 17/12/2011. |
3,900 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply