CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 24 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50794/16 Yuliya Sergeyevna SELIVANOVA against Russia lodged on 17 August 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Yuliya Sergeyevna Selivanova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Taganrog, Rostov region. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At about 10.40 p.m. on 22   September 2013 the applicant and her fiancé were returning in their car after a trip to the Ukraine to buy a wedding dress. After they crossed the border, the police stopped their car. They took the applicant to a police car where she remained for three hours. Policemen found some drugs on the applicant’s fiancé and in the car. They further brought the applicant to a police station, searched her and took her mobile phone. She was not allowed leaving the police station. A police woman accompanied her to the restroom. In the evening of 23   September 2013 policemen took the applicant to her flat for its search. After the search, at about 6 p.m., they left and the applicant stayed at home. On 19   May 2015 the applicant asked the authorities to initiate a criminal investigation into the facts of her unrecorded detention. On 12   December 2015 the authorities dismissed her request having found no evidence of her forceful stay at the police station. The applicant complained about the refusal to the national courts. On 5   May 2016 the Matveyevo-Kurganskiy District Court of the Rostov Region rejected her complaint as unfounded. On 7   July 2016 the Rostov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about her unrecorded detention from 10.40 p.m. on 22 September 2013 to 6 p.m. on 23 September 2013.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was her detention from 10.40 p.m. on 22   September 2013 to 6 p.m. on 23   September 2013 recorded, as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?