The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 13 August 2009<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Boldyrev v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 13 August 2009.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Ms I. Zhuravleva, a lawyer practising in Perm.<\/p>\n 3. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained that his appeal against the detention order of 3 December 2007 had not been decided \u201cspeedily\u201d. He relied on Article 5 \u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 5 \u00a7 4<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.\u201d<\/p>\n 7. The Court reiterates that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention precisely and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see\u00a0Baranowski v. Poland, no.\u00a028358\/95, \u00a7 68, ECHR\u00a02000-III). Where an individual\u2019s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State\u2019s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Kadem v.\u00a0Malta,\u00a0no.\u00a055263\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 44-45, 9 January 2003, where the Court considered a time period of seventeen days in deciding on the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s detention to be excessive, and\u00a0Mamedova v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a07064\/05, \u00a7 96, 1\u00a0June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting,\u00a0inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the \u201cspeediness\u201d requirement of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 4).<\/p>\n 8. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 219-48, 31\u00a0May 2011 and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 75-115, 25 October 2007, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 9. 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 appeal proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles\u00a034 and\u00a035 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 78-80, 11\u00a0July 2017, Aybo\u011fa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 113-15, 18 February 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 87-89, 19 January 2016 and Karaosmanoglu and \u00d6zden v. Turkey, no. 4807\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 89-91, 17 June 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 15. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaints concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong> [1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n
\nCASE OF BOLDYREV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 52023\/08)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 June 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving deliberated in private on 19 May 2022,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention
\n(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Application no.<\/strong>
\nDate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nYear of birth<\/strong>
\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nRepresentative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n First-instance court and date of detention order<\/strong><\/td>\n Appeal instance court and date of decision<\/strong><\/td>\n Procedural deficiencies<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong>
\n(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\n 52023\/08
\n13\/08\/2009<\/td>\nAndrey Vladimirovich BOLDYREV<\/strong>
\n1967<\/td>\nZhuravleva Inna Valeryevna
\nPerm<\/td>\nPerm Regional Court
\n03\/12\/2007<\/td>\nSupreme Court of Russia 14\/01\/2010<\/td>\n lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03,
\n\u00a7\u00a7 154-158,
\n22 May 2012)<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n