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
|
