Право
Навигация

 

Реклама




 

 

Ресурсы в тему

 

Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

 

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

 

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 21.07.2005 ДЕЛО РЫЦАРЕВ (RYTSAREV) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад


                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             THIRD SECTION
                                   
                      CASE OF RYTSAREV v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 63332/00)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 21.VII.2005)
   
   --------------------------------
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
   
       In the case of Rytsarev v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr {B.M. Zupancic} <*>, President,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Mr J. Hedigan,
       Mr L. Caflisch,
       Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
       Mr E. Myjer, judges,
       and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
   
                               PROCEDURE
   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 63332/00) 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,  Vladimir
   Ivanovich Rytsarev ("the applicant"), on 12 August 2000.
       2.  The  applicant was represented by Mr V.V. Suchkov, a lawyer
   practising  in  Oryol.  The Russian Government  ("the  Government")
   were  represented by Mr P.A. Laptev, Representative of the  Russian
   Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  The  applicant alleged, in particular, that his application
   for  release was not determined speedily, as required by Article  5
   з  4  of  the Convention, and that the conditions of his  detention
   were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
       4.  The  application was allocated to the Third Section of  the
   Court  (Rule  52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within  that  Section,
   the  Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з  1  of  the
   Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
       5.  By  a  decision  of  3  July 2003,  the  Court  decided  to
   communicate   the   complaints  concerning  the   length   of   the
   proceedings  by  which the lawfulness of the applicant's  detention
   was  decided and the alleged inhuman treatment during detention and
   declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.
       6.  By a decision of 16 September 2004, the Court declared  the
   remainder of the application admissible.
       7.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
   the  merits  (Rule  59  з  1). The Chamber  having  decided,  after
   consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was  required
   (Rule  59  з  3  in fine), the parties replied in writing  to  each
   other's observations.
       8.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
   Sections  (Rule  25  з  1). This case was  assigned  to  the  newly
   composed Third Section (Rule 52 з 1).
   
                               THE FACTS
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
   
       9.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village  of
   Zhdimir in the Oryol Region of Russia.
   
                   A. Proceedings for determination
            of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention
   
       10.  On 8 July 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained  on
   suspicion  of  having  committed theft of aluminium  wire.  He  was
   placed  in  a  cell  intended for the detention  of  administrative
   offenders ("KAZ") at the Znamenskiy district police station in  the
   village of Znamenskoye.
       11.  On  9 July 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint  with  an
   investigator  of the Znamenskiy District Police Department  of  the
   Oryol  Region,  seeking to have the lawfulness of  his  arrest  and
   detention  challenged before the Znamenskiy District Court  of  the
   Oryol Region and requesting that he be released. The complaint  was
   never sent to the court.
       12.  On  11 July 2000 the applicant was charged with theft.  On
   the  same  day an order for his pre-trial detention was  issued  by
   the  investigator and confirmed by the prosecutor of the Znamenskiy
   District of the Oryol Region.
       13.  On 13 July 2000 the applicant was transferred to detention
   facility No. 1 (Investigatory Isolation Ward No. 1) in the town  of
   Oryol.
       14. On 27 July and 9 August 2000 the applicant again complained
   about  the unlawfulness of his arrest and detention, this  time  to
   the  Sovetskiy District Court of Oryol. The complaints reached  the
   court on 7 and 16 August 2000 respectively.
       15. On 17 August 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court asked to  be
   sent  the case file for examination and scheduled a hearing for  23
   August 2000. The hearing was not held, since the case file had  not
   been communicated and the applicant had not been brought to court.
       16.  On  22  August 2000 the applicant's counsel wrote  to  the
   prosecutor  of  the  Znamenskiy  District  of  the  Oryol   Region,
   complaining  about  the  investigator's  failure  to  transfer  the
   applicant's complaint of 9 July 2000, alleging unlawful  detention,
   to a court. The prosecutor did not react.
       17.  On  5 September 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court  held  a
   hearing.  The court found that the applicant's arrest and detention
   were  unlawful  and ordered that he be released directly  from  the
   courtroom.
       18.  On 18 December 2001 the Khotynetskiy District Court of the
   Oryol Region remitted the criminal case against the applicant on  a
   charge  of  theft  to  the  public  prosecutor  of  the  Znamenskiy
   District of the Oryol Region for further investigation.
       19.  By a decision of 12 September 2003 the Znamenskiy District
   Court  of  the  Oryol Region discontinued criminal  proceedings  in
   view  of  the  fact that the prosecution service  had  dropped  the
   charges against the applicant.
       20.  The applicant brought proceedings for non-pecuniary damage
   caused as a result of his detention.
       21.  On  23 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court  of
   Oryol held:
       "...  the  court has come to the conclusion that the  plaintiff
   Rytsarev  was  unlawfully held in custody  during  the  preliminary
   investigation  for  a total of over 56 days...,  which  caused  him
   moral   and   physical  suffering.  Furthermore,  with  regard   to
   compensation  for  non-pecuniary  damage,  the  court  takes   into
   account  that, while detained in the KAZ of the Znamenskiy District
   of  Oryol  Region  from 8 July to 12 July 2000 inclusive,  Rytsarev
   was  not  given food since, according to the report for the  period
   from   6  to  15  July  2000  by  the  public  catering  enterprise
   "Znamenskoye",  which supplies meals for persons  detained  in  the
   Znamenskiy   district  police  department's  KAZ,  food   was   not
   delivered  to  the district police department from  6  to  13  July
   2000...  In  that  connection,  the court  cannot  account  of  two
   applications  from  the head of the district  police  department...
   requesting  two meals for detainees, since one is undated  and  the
   other  is  dated  11  July 2000, in other  words  four  days  after
   Rytsarev was detained, and they do not indicate for whom the  meals
   were  ordered...  Equally, it follows from  the  application  by...
   Rytsarev's brother... that food parcels... [for Rytsarev] were  not
   accepted  from  him or other relatives [by the Znamenskiy  district
   police department's KAZ]. Only water and tea were accepted..."
       22.  The  court  awarded the applicant 30,000  Russian  roubles
   (RUR) for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment came into force  on  2
   June 2004.
       23.  According to the Government, the sum awarded was  paid  to
   the  applicant  on  25 October 2004 in execution of  the  judgment.
   This was not denied by the applicant.
   
                      B. Conditions of detention
   
       24.  According to the applicant, he was given no water or  food
   during  his  detention in the Znamenskiy district police  station's
   KAZ  from  8 to 12 July 2000 inclusive. His relatives were  allowed
   to  pass  him  only water and tea in two 1.5 1 bottles  on  9  July
   2000.  He was not taken out for exercise or permitted to  go  to  a
   lavatory, which was located outside the building, as frequently  as
   he needed.
       25.  Records  of  the applicant's questioning on  9  July  2000
   contain  a  statement by him to the effect that he  had  not  eaten
   anything  since  the  previous day and had not  been  given  water.
   Similarly,  records  of his questioning on  12  July  2000  contain
   statements  that he had not been given anything to eat  and  drink,
   that  he  had  been  brought water by his  brothers  and  that  the
   investigator had offered to give him food in exchange for a  guilty
   plea.
       26.  The  applicant's  complaint of 22 August  2000  about  the
   conditions of his detention was dismissed on 23 August 2000 as ill-
   founded  by  the Znamenskiy District prosecutor's office.  However,
   the  prosecutor noted that there had been no courtyard suitable for
   detainees' exercise on account of repair work.
       27.  In  their  observations of 3 October 2003  the  Government
   submitted  that  daily  meals  had  been  served  to  detainees  at
   lunchtime  by  the  only catering enterprise in  the  village.  The
   detainees  had been served only tea for breakfast and dinner.  Food
   from  relatives  was  accepted without restrictions.  According  to
   police  officers from the Znamenskiy district police  station,  the
   applicant  refused  meals  provided  by  the  police.  However   he
   received   daily   food   parcels  from  his   relatives,   without
   restrictions. There were no limitations on drinking water.  He  did
   not  complain  about  the shortage of water  or  food.  Thus,  when
   questioned  by the district prosecutor on 11 July 2000 he  made  no
   complaints  about his detention conditions. He asked  only  that  a
   doctor  be  called  since  he felt unwell,  and  that  request  was
   granted.  The  applicant was regularly taken out to a lavatory.  He
   was not tortured and no degrading acts were performed against him.
   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
   
       28.  The  Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, in force  at  the
   material time, provided as follows:
   
                              Article 46
   
       "...  The  accused  may...  appeal  to  a  court  against   the
   unlawfulness and groundlessness of detention..."
   
                             Article 220-1
   
       "... When a prison administration receives a detainee's [appeal
   to  a court against pre-trial detention], it must pass the [appeal]
   to  the  relevant  court immediately, and, at any rate,  not  later
   than   24  hours  after  its  receipt,  having  informed  a  public
   prosecutor...
       If  the  appeal  was lodged via the prison administration,  the
   prosecutor  must send [the documents confirming the lawfulness  and
   validity  of the detention as a measure of restraint] to the  court
   within   24   hours  of  receipt  of  the  prison  administration's
   notification that the person concerned has lodged an appeal..."
   
                             Article 220-2
   
       "...  A  judge  must review the lawfulness of the  detention...
   within   three   days  of  receipt  of  documents  confirming   the
   lawfulness   and  validity  of  the  detention  as  a  measure   of
   restraint..."
                                   
                                THE LAW
                                   
                The Government's preliminary objection
                                   
       29. After the case had been declared admissible, the Government
   submitted  that,  following  the discontinuation  of  the  criminal
   proceedings  against the applicant, the Zheleznodorozhniy  District
   Court  of  Oryol acknowledged in a judgment of 23 April  2004  that
   there  had been a violation of the applicant's rights as guaranteed
   by  Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and awarded compensation for
   non-pecuniary   damage.   The   Government   concluded   that   the
   applicant's  rights were therefore restored and invited  the  Court
   to  discontinue the examination of the complaint in accordance with
   Article 37 з 1 of the Convention.
       30.  The  applicant  invited  the Court  to  proceed  with  the
   consideration  of  the case. He submitted that the  domestic  civil
   court  did  not acknowledge that he had been subjected to  torture,
   nor  did it consider the issue of his access to a court in relation
   to  his  complaint  about the unlawfulness  of  his  detention.  No
   criminal  proceedings  had been brought with  regard  to  his  ill-
   treatment.
       31.  The Court reiterates that the issue of whether someone may
   still  claim  to  be  a  victim  of an  alleged  violation  of  the
   Convention entails on the part of the Court essentially an ex  post
   facto  examination of the situation of the person concerned in  the
   course  of  which  the  question whether he  or  she  has  received
   reparation  for damage caused - comparable to just satisfaction  as
   provided  for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an  important
   issue.  It  is  the  Court's settled case-law that  where  national
   authorities  have found a violation and their decision  constitutes
   appropriate  and  sufficient redress therefor, the  party  involved
   can  no  longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of  Article
   34  of  the  Convention  (see Holzinger v.  Austria  (No.  1),  No.
   23459/94, з 21, ECHR 2001-I).
       32.  The  Court observes that the applicant brought proceedings
   for  damages against the State which ended with the judgment of  23
   April  2004 of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Oryol, which
   came  into  force  on 2 June 2004. The District Court  awarded  the
   applicant  RUR  30,000 for non-pecuniary damage on account  of  the
   applicant's  unlawful  detention for over  56  days  prior  to  his
   release  on  5  September 2000, and the fact that he had  not  been
   given  food  from 8 July to 12 July 2000 inclusive  while  held  in
   custody.  The  District  Court based  its  finding  on  a  thorough
   examination of the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment and  the
   evidence produced by both parties (see paragraph 21 above).
       33.  The Court finds that the Zheleznodorozhniy District  Court
   of   Oryol   acknowledged,  in  substance,  a  violation   of   the
   applicant's rights as guaranteed under Article 3 of the  Convention
   in  that  he  had  not  been given food for five  days  during  his
   detention. The Court considers that by awarding the applicant  that
   compensation the District Court offered appropriate and  sufficient
   redress.  Thus, the applicant could no longer claim to be a  victim
   of  a violation of Article 3. The Court is therefore unable to take
   cognisance of the merits of the complaint.
       34.  The  Court notes that in their observations of  3  October
   2003  the Government acknowledged that the complaint of 9 July 2000
   about  the  unlawfulness of detention, which the  applicant  lodged
   with  the investigator of the Znamenskiy District Police Department
   of  the Oryol Region, was never forwarded to a court, in breach  of
   the  domestic law. The Government informed the Court  that  it  has
   been  pointed  out  to the head of the Znamenskiy  District  Police
   investigation department that such violations are intolerable.
       35.  The  Court further notes that the damages awarded  by  the
   judgment  of  23 April 2004 related, inter alia, to the  fact  that
   the  applicant  had  been held unlawfully in custody  for  56  days
   until 5 September 2000.
       36.  In  these circumstances, and taking into account  that  it
   does  not  transpire  from the above judgment  that  the  applicant
   raised  a  separate  question concerning the  "speediness"  of  the
   proceedings  to  determine the lawfulness  of  his  detention,  the
   Court  accepts  the  Government's  view  that  the  violation   was
   remedied  at  the domestic level. It cannot therefore  examine  the
   merits of the complaint.
   
               FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
   
       Holds that, by reason of the applicant's loss of his status  as
   a  "victim" for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, it is
   unable to take cognisance of the merits of the application.
   
       Done  in  English,  and notified in writing on  21  July  2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
   
                                                  {Bostjan M.ZUPANCIC}
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                        Vincent BERGER
                                                             Registrar
                                                                      
                                                                      

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz