EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BEDNOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 21153/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 1.VI.2006)
--------------------------------
<*> 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 Bednov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 May 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 21153/02) 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, Mr Vladimir
Vladimirovich Bednov ("the applicant"), on 14 April 2002.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that his applications
for release pending trial had not been examined by domestic
courts.
4. The application was allocated to the First 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 24 March 2005, the Court declared the
application partly admissible.
6. The applicant and the Government each filed further written
observations (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.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
7. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Krivoborye,
Voronezh Region.
8. On 25 July 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of
robbery.
9. On 27 July 2001 the Prosecutor ordered the pre-trial
detention of the applicant as a preventive measure.
10. The applicant filed a complaint on 6 August 2001 with the
Liskinskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region and on 7 August
2001 with the Voronezh Regional Court, claiming that his detention
was unlawful.
11. On 9 August 2001 the applicant lodged an application for
release pending trial with the Voronezh Regional Court. The
application was sent by the administration of the remand prison on
the same date and was received by that court on 14 August 2001.
12. On 16 August 2001 the applicant lodged another application
for release pending trial with the Voronezh Regional Court. On the
same date the Voronezh Regional Court forwarded the applicant's
application for release to the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court of
Voronezh. It is unclear whether that application was the one dated
9 August or 16 August 2001.
13. On 23 and 27 August 2001 the applicant again lodged
applications for release pending trial with the Voronezh Regional
Court. The application of 23 August 2001 was sent by the
administration of the remand prison on the same date and was
received by that court on 27 August 2001.
14. The Government submitted that on 23 August 2001 the
Voronezh Regional Court had sent the applicant certain
clarifications concerning Article 220-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
15. The applicant submitted that on 27 August 2001 he had
received a reply from the Voronezh Regional Court informing him
that all his complaints and applications had been transmitted to
the Liskinskiy District Court.
16. On 31 August 2001 the Voronezh Regional Court forwarded the
applicant's application to the Liskinskiy District Court. It is
unclear to which of the applications this corresponded.
17. On 7 September 2001 the applicant was transferred to a
different remand prison.
18. On 11 September 2001 the investigative authorities
forwarded certain documents from the applicant's case file to the
Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court for examination under Article 220-
2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
19. On 20 September 2001 the Liskinskiy District Court
forwarded the applicant's application for release pending trial to
the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court referring to the fact that
the applicant was being held in a remand prison within the latter
court's jurisdiction. The application was received by the
Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court on 24 September 2001.
20. On 26 September 2001 the administration of the remand
prison where the applicant used to be held informed the
Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court that the applicant could not be
conveyed to a hearing on that date because on 7 September 2001 he
had been transferred to the Liskinskiy District. It appears that
the hearing was supposed to concern the application for release
pending trial.
21. On 2 October 2001 the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court
forwarded the applicant's applications for release pending trial
to the Liskinskiy District Court. It is unclear which particular
applications were concerned.
22. On 3 October 2001 the administration of the remand prison
where the applicant used to be held again informed the
Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court that the applicant could not be
conveyed to a hearing on that date because on 7 September 2001 he
had been transferred to the Liskinskiy District.
23. On 30 October 2001 the Liskinskiy District Court convicted
the applicant of theft and sentenced him to four years and six
months' imprisonment. The court counted the term of the
applicant's pre-trial detention towards the term of his
imprisonment.
24. On 19 March 2002 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the
Voronezh Regional Court.
II. Relevant domestic law
25. In accordance with Article 220-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1960 in force at the material time, complaints about
a decision to apply pre-trial detention as a preventive measure
and about the length of the detention could be lodged with a court
by the detainee or his representative. Under Article 220-2
judicial review of the lawfulness, validity and length of the
detention was carried out by a judge in camera at the place of the
detention within three days after receipt of documents justifying
the arrest.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 5 з 4 of the Convention
26. The applicant complained under Article 5 з 4 of the
Convention that his complaints about the lawfulness of his pre-
trial detention and applications for release pending trial had not
been examined by the domestic courts. Article 5 з 4 of the
Convention provides:
"Everyone 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."
A. Arguments of the parties
1. The Government
27. In their observations submitted prior to the decision on
admissibility of 24 March 2005 the Government stated that in reply
to the applicant's complaints challenging the lawfulness of his
pre-trial detention and applications for release pending trial,
the Voronezh Regional Court, on 23 August 2001, had sent him
certain clarifications concerning Article 220-1 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. As regards the complaints and applications
received by the courts after that date, the Government maintained
that the applicant had sent them to the Zheleznodorozhniy District
Court and to the Liskinskiy District Court, both of which lacked
jurisdiction to examine them. The Government further asserted that
the Liskinskiy District Court had not examined the complaints and
applications concerned because on 30 October 2001 the applicant
had been convicted. The Government maintained that for the above
reasons the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. In their
observations submitted after the decision on admissibility of 24
March 2005 the Government noted with regard to the applicant's
applications lodged with the Voronezh Regional Court that all
documents related to the year 2001 had been destroyed as the time-
limit for their retention had expired.
2. The applicant
28. The applicant contested the Government's submissions
claiming that he had not sent any complaints to the
Zheleznodorozhniy District Court. He contended that they had all
been sent to the Liskinskiy District Court in accordance with the
instructions received from the Voronezh Regional Court, but that
none of them had been examined.
B. The Court's assessment
29. The Court reiterates that Article 5 з 4 of the Convention
entitles arrested or detained persons to obtain the review of the
procedural and substantive conditions essential for the
"lawfulness", in Convention terms, of their deprivation of liberty
(see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29
November 1988, Series A No. 154-B, p. 34, з 65). In guaranteeing
to persons arrested or detained a right to take proceedings to
challenge the lawfulness of their detention, Article 5 з 4 also
enshrines their right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the
lawfulness of detention and ordering its termination if it proves
unlawful (see Rokhlina v. Russia, No. 54071/00, з 74, 7 April
2005).
30. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes
that during his pre-trial detention, between 25 July and 30
October 2001, the applicant lodged six complaints concerning the
unlawfulness of his detention and applications for release pending
trial. None of them was examined by a domestic court.
31. As regards the first argument advanced by the Government,
the Court observes that they neither submitted a copy of the
Voronezh Regional Court's letter of 23 August 2001, nor explained
precisely what clarifications the applicant had been provided with
or why, if at all, that fact should have released the domestic
courts from having to examine his complaints.
32. The Court further notes the Government's assertion that the
applicant sent his complaints to the Zheleznodorozhniy District
Court and to the Liskinskiy District Court, both of which lacked
jurisdiction to examine them. The Court observes, however, that
the applicant sent his first complaint to the Liskinskiy District
Court and the remaining complaints and applications for release to
the Voronezh Regional Court. His complaints and applications were
then transferred from one court to another a number of times.
Therefore it was the domestic courts themselves that failed to
establish which court had jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of
the applicant's pre-trial detention.
33. Lastly, the Government maintained that the Liskinskiy
District Court had not examined the complaints and applications
concerned because on 30 October 2001 the applicant had been
convicted. The Court observes, in the first place, that this
argument contradicts the previous one, since the explanation
offered by the Government in respect of that failure to examine
the applicant's complaints implies that the Liskinskiy District
Court had jurisdiction to examine them. Furthermore, the Court
considers that the fact that the applicant was eventually found
guilty of a criminal offence and the term of his pre-trial
detention was counted towards the term of his sentence cannot in
principle justify the failure to examine his applications for
release pending trial. It follows that the applicant was denied
the right to a judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his
pre-trial detention.
34. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 з 4 of
the Convention.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
35. 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."
A. Damage
36. The applicant claimed non-pecuniary damage in the amount of
EUR 72,000 caused by the actions of judicial and executive bodies.
He referred, in particular, to the very fact of his detention,
allegedly poor conditions of his post-conviction detention,
alleged ill-treatment in prison that affected his health,
difficulties with payments for certain public utilities and lack
of funds for proper housing.
37. The Government submitted that the alleged damage had no
causal link with the complaint before the Court.
38. Inasmuch as the applicant's claim relates to his post-
conviction detention and alleged financial hardship, the Court
does not discern any causal link between the violation found and
the non-pecuniary damage alleged. On the other hand, the Court
accepts that the applicant suffered distress, anxiety and
frustration caused by the denial of his right to have the
lawfulness of his detention examined. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in
compensation for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
39. The applicant did not make any claims in respect of the
costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before
this Court.
40. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
41. The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest 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. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 з 4 of
the Convention;
2. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 з 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into the national currency of the respondent State at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that
may be chargeable;
(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;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 June 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
|
