European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KOTOV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 13804/20)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

15 December 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kotov v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Ioannis Ktistakis,
          Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 February 2020.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms V.D. Mikhaylova, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of deprivation of liberty. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention

6.  The applicant complained that his administrative escorting to a police station on 10 March 2018 had been in contravention of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so...”

7.  The Court has previously examined complaints brought by persons arrested and detained in similar circumstances in Russia. Having examined the applicable domestic regulations, the Court established that, under the Russian law, the escorting to a police station and ensuing detention there for the purpose of preparing an administrative arrest record would be permissible only if such record could not be drawn up at the place where the alleged offence had been discovered. The law also required that such escorting and detention be an “exceptional case” and necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative case or to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed (see, for example, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 71, 15 November 2018). The authorities’ failure to comply with those requirements, in the Court’s view, led to a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019).

8.  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 the present complaint. The Court discerns nothing in the official records submitted for it to conclude that recourse to such procedure was justified, as required by the Russian law. It concludes that that the national authorities failed to comply with applicable rules of domestic procedure and considers that the applicant’s administrative escorting to the police station on 10 March 2018 was not “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

9.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

II.     Remaining complaints

10.  The applicant also raised other complaints under Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention.

11.  The Court has examined those complains 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 34 and 35 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.

12.  It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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.”

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

15.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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.      Declares the complaint concerning the administrative escorting on 10 March 2018 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (administrative escorting);

3.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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;

4.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))

Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant’s name Year of birth	Representative’s name and location	Start and end dates of unauthorised detention	Specific defects	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage (in euros) [1]
13804/20 28/02/2020	Aleksey Nikolayevich KOTOV 1983	Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg	10/03/2018-10/03/2018;	Escort of the applicant on 10 March 2018 to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).	3,000