CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3A1F5D7A { height:22.75pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE52F16AC { height:205.55pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 2682/12 Roman Vasilyevich VERETENNIKOV and Others against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   September 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9   December 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by lawyers from Committee Against Torture, a non-governmental organisation based in Nizhniy Novgorod. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) The applicants complained that their detention at the police station from 7 to 8   February 2010 had been arbitrary and unlawful. They relied on Article   5   §   1 of the Convention, which 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: (a)     the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation 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; (d)     the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e)     the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.” The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaint should be dismissed for the applicants’ failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of their grievances. The applicants maintained their complaints. Regard being had to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it necessary to examine first, of its own motion, the issue as to whether the applicants could still claim to be victims of the violation alleged (see, mutatis mutandis , Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.   27996/06 and 34836/06, § 27, ECHR 2009). It reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question of a victim status is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention. A decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2009). The Court notes that in the present case the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic acknowledged that the applicants’ escorting to the police station and detention there for 16 hours had amounted to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   5 of the Convention and that it had been unlawful as contravening the domestic legislation. Accordingly, the Court accepts that the Russian authorities acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights as set out in Article   5   §   1 of the Convention. The Court further observes that the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful detention were granted in full and that it was the applicants’ conscientious and free-will decision to ask for a symbolic award. The Court discerns nothing in the parties’ submission that would prevent it from, therefore, concluding that the domestic authorities afforded sufficient redress to the applicants. It follows that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 5   §   1 within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, and that their application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. Regard being had to the above, the Court does not consider it necessary to address the Government’s objection as regards the exhaustion of effective domestic remedies by the applicants. Remaining complaints The applicants also raised other complaints under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court has examined the application 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. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.   {signature_p_2}   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 date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects and ensuing developments 2682/12 09/12/2011 (3 applicants) Roman Vasilyevich VERETENNIKOV 1975   Dmitriy Viktorovich YEGOSHIN 1971   Viktor Ritovich SADYKOV 1965 Committee Against Torture, Nizhniy Novgorod 07/02/2010 08/02/2010 Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26/06/2018)   On 12/05/2011 the applicants brought a claim for non-pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful detention against the State asking for an award in the amount of RUB 5.   The matter was reviewed twice by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction.   On 21/06/2012 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic examined the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of the Leninskiy District Court of Groznyy (dismissal of the applicants’ claims). The Supreme Court quashed the said judgment, recognised that the applicants’ escorting to the police stations and detention there had amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   5 of the Convention and that it had been in contravention of applicable laws and granted their claim in full awarding the requested symbolic amount. The applicants did not appeal.