The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications.<\/p>\n
In the earlier cases against Russia, the European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period, or (2) \u201cescorting\u201d to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation, or (3) continued deprivation of liberty after an offence record has been compiled, have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the \u201clawfulness\u201d guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 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 applicants\u2019 detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the \u201clawfulness\u201d guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Full text of the document.<\/em><\/p>\n European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Savelyevy and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 2 November 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n III. As to locus standi of Ms Savelyeva<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. Following the death of Mr Savelyev (application no. 83654\/17), Ms\u00a0Savelyeva, his widow and the first applicant, expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf. The Government did not comment.<\/p>\n 8. The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant\u2019s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court\u2019s assessment of the person\u2019s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359\/10, \u00a7 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant\u2019s death (see Malhous v.\u00a0the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071\/96, ECHR 2000 XII).<\/p>\n 9. In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Savelyeva has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant\u2019s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to Mr Savelyev as the applicant in the present judgment.<\/p>\n IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 11. The Court reiterates that that the expressions \u201clawful\u201d and \u201cin accordance with a procedure prescribed by law\u201d in Article 5 \u00a7 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 \u00a7 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a040-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).<\/p>\n 12. In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1)\u00a0detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018), or (2)\u00a0\u201cescorting\u201d to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019, and Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a034, 2\u00a0July 2019), or (3)\u00a0continued deprivation of liberty after an offence record has been compiled (see ibid., \u00a7 35), have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the \u201clawfulness\u201d guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 13. 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 applicants\u2019 detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the \u201clawfulness\u201d guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).<\/p>\n 14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. Some applicants 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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\u2011established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38\u201142, 8\u00a0October 2019, concerning delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos.\u00a060921\/17 and 7202\/18, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a077\u201190, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Korneyeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a044-65, concerning right not to be tried or punished twice; and Yartsev v. Russia, no. 16683\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a022-38, 20\u00a0July 2021, concerning restrictions on the right to freedom of expression).<\/p>\n 16. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253\/04 and 2 others, \u00a7 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n 3. Declares that Ms Savelyeva (application no. 83654\/17) has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant\u2019s, Mr Savelyev\u2019s, stead;<\/p>\n 4. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);<\/p>\n 6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);<\/p>\n 7. Holds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;<\/p>\n 8. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts 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 23 November 2023, 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 Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX
\n
\nFIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SAVELYEVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 83654\/17 and 18 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 November 2023<\/p>\n
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, President,
\nMattias Guyomar,
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))<\/p>\n