CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 17 October 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 27365/21 Victor LUKK against Estonia lodged on 10 May 2021 communicated on 29 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns allegedly unlawful detention of the applicant and availability of an enforceable right to compensation under Estonian law. The applicant was first convicted in one criminal case and sentenced to prison on 5 October 2016. It appears that on 6 October 2016 the Tartu County Court decided to remand the applicant in prison pending his trial in a second criminal case. This detention was to take effect as of the date that he had served his sentence in this first case or was granted an early release. While the applicant was still serving his prison sentence, the Tartu County Court on 22 December 2016 convicted him in the second criminal case and again sentenced him to prison. The Tartu County Court in the latter case also remanded him in prison in order to secure the execution of his conviction once it became final. On 18 September 2018 the Tartu Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant in the second criminal case in respect of some charges. In so far as his conviction was partially upheld, the Tartu Court of Appeal decided that his sentence had been covered by the sentence ordered in the first criminal case and that it must be considered to have been served. The applicant was immediately released. The Supreme Court upheld this decision on 9   May 2019. The applicant considered that he had been unlawfully detained between 1   January 2017 (at which date his sentence in the second criminal case was considered to have been served and he should have been released) and 18 September 2018. He lodged a claim for damages on 27 May 2019. In the proceedings for damages, the Tartu Court of Appeal considered that the claim had been lodged in time and partially allowed it. On 18 December 2020, the Supreme Court quashed the appellate court’s decision and found that the compensation claim had been submitted out of time. The Supreme Court, relying by analogy on section 18(1) of the Compensation for Damage Caused in Offence Proceedings Act, considered that the claim should have been lodged already with the Tartu Court of Appeal during the main proceedings and that there was no valid reason why this could not have been done. The Supreme Court also found – by changing its earlier approach – that it was not bound by the earlier judgments in the same case nor by the scope of the applicant’s appeal when deciding whether or not the claim had been lodged in time. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty between 1 January 2017 and 18 September 2018. He also complains under Article 5 § 5 that his right to obtain compensation has been violated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 1 January 2017 and 18 September 2018 fall within paragraph (a) of this provision (see, for general principles, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no.   42750/09, § 125, ECHR 2013)?   2.     Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the reasoning provided by the Supreme Court, did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (compare Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia , no. 63106/12, §§ 31-36, 22 October 2020; and Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia , nos. 52241/14 and 74222/14, § 19, 10   July 2018)?   The Government are asked to clarify whether the potential payment of compensation for deprivation of liberty under Compensation for Damage Caused in Offence Proceedings Act entails the acknowledgment that the person’s deprivation of liberty had been unlawful (compare Norik Poghosyan , cited above, §§ 31-36).   Noting the different dates invoked in the context of domestic proceedings and in his application to the Court, the applicant is asked to clarify the exact time period during which he considers himself to have been unlawfully deprived of his liberty and with regard to which he sought compensation, and provide copies of the relevant documents.   In addition, the applicant is requested to submit documents concerning his detention on remand pending his trial in the second criminal case, namely the decision of the Tartu County Court (dated 6 October 2016), decision of the Tartu Court of Appeal (dated 1 November 2016) and the decision of the Supreme Court (dated 30 November 2016).