Having examined all the material submitted to it, the European Court of Human Rights 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.<\/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 Ovcharov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 16 November 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 8. The Court reiterates 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 40-41 in\u00a0fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).<\/p>\n 9. In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a091\u201196, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7 67, 13\u00a0February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110\/03, \u00a7 81, 3\u00a0March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and\u00a05\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018, the Court has already found a violation in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 10. 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 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. 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, among other authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no.\u00a0926\/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, Dirdizov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0108-11, 27 November 2012, concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention; Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 62-65, 8 October 2019, concerning the right not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence; and Kleyn v. Russia, no. 44925\/06, \u00a7\u00a739-46, 5 January 2016, related to the right to compensation in respect of detention in contravention of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention).<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Ms Beshtoyeva (application no. 59858\/19) also raised additional complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 14. The Court has examined these complaints 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. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 15. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining applicants\u2019 complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the proceedings and the alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. 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 the complaints concerning the unlawful detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no.\u00a059858\/19 inadmissible, and finds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);<\/p>\n 5. 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 6. 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 7 December 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 Lorraine Schembri Orland ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nSECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF OVCHAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 3345\/18 and 17 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 December 2023<\/p>\n
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, 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\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