I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GORYUNKOV v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2009-06-30
  • Communication date: 2020-01-10
  • Application number(s): 40408/18
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 7, 7-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.654102
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 27 January 2020 The applicant, Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Goryunkov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in St Petersburg.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 October 2017 the investigative committee asked the police to run an inquiry on the applicant in connection with Ye.’s disappearance.
It was suspected that Ye., who was a minor at the time, had lived for some time in the applicant’s flat.
The police sent a summons to the applicant’s address asking him to appear for questioning.
The applicant did not comply.
On 20 October 2017 police officers A. and S. met the applicant at his place of work.
The police officers asked the applicant to show his ID.
The applicant refused to comply and tried to flee.
The police arrested the applicant, took him to the police station and instituted administrative proceedings against him on the charge of refusal to comply with a lawful police order.
On 22 October 2017 the applicant was released.
On 4 December 2017 the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a monetary fine in the amount of 700 Russian roubles (RUB)[1].
The court questioned the police officers who had arrested the applicant and one of the eye-witnesses to the applicant’s altercation with the police, and examined the video recording of the incident.
The applicant appealed.
On 8 February 2018 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 4 December 2017 on appeal.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention in the police custody was unlawful.

Judgment