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

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-09-15
  • Communication date: 2017-03-24
  • Application number(s): 50794/16
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)
    Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
    Article 6-3-c - Defence in person)
    Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
    Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.656611
  • 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

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.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SELIVANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos.
50794/16 and 6 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 September 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Selivanova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Mikhail Lobov, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3.
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5.
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, 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.”
7.
The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III). 8. In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of a criminal suspect without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 76, 26 June 2018), (2) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), (3) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (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), or (4) detention of an administrative suspect without any written record of the arrest (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017) have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention. 9. 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 11. In applications nos. 39759/20 and 39776/20, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; Yakovlev v. Russia [Committee], no. 44240/12 and two others, 17 December 2019, concerning the defendant’s absence from the administrative appeal hearing, and Atyukov v. Russia [Committee], no. 74467/10, 9 July 2019, concerning the administrative defendant’s inability to confront witnesses against him). 12. In applications nos. 50794/16, 67791/17, 81932/17 and 2128/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined the applications 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 14. 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.”
15.
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 sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 16. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
No.
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
50794/16
17/08/2016
Yuliya Sergeyevna SELIVANOVA
1989
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
22/09/2013,
10.40 p.m.
23/09/2013,
6 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)‐(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

3,000
43080/17
02/06/2017
Nachyn Valentinovich SARYGLAR
1997
Samdan Andrey Grigoryevich
Kyzyl
29/06/2016, 2.50 p.m.
29/06/2016, 7.40 p.m.
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 June 2018)

3,000
67791/17
02/09/2017
Vyacheslav Petrovich VASILYEV
1987
Semkin Vladimir Borisovich
Tyumen
16/11/2016
17/11/2016
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 June 2018)

3,000
81932/17
30/11/2017
Magomed Akhmetovich ICHIYEV
1981
Magomadov Andarbek Sharanovich
Moscow
23/04/2017
24/04/2017
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 June 2018)

3,000
2128/18
12/12/2017
Roman Vladimirovich STRAKHOV
1972
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
12/06/2017
2.45 p.m.
12/06/2017
9 p.m.
Applicant taken 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),
Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art.
27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017)

3,000
39759/20
23/08/2020
Anton Aleksandrovich KLYUZHEV
1995

03/08/2019,
2.50 p.m.
03/08/2019,
11.55 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Applicant taken 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)
Art.
6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to examine the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,

Art.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,900
39776/20
22/08/2020
Damir Nailyevich MANZHUKOV
1986

03/06/2020
8 p.m.
05/06/2020
12.30 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.
72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art.
6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - from the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 09/06/2020,

Art.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,900

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SELIVANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos.
50794/16 and 6 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 September 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Selivanova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Mikhail Lobov, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3.
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5.
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, 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.”
7.
The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III). 8. In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of a criminal suspect without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 76, 26 June 2018), (2) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), (3) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (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), or (4) detention of an administrative suspect without any written record of the arrest (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017) have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention. 9. 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 11. In applications nos. 39759/20 and 39776/20, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; Yakovlev v. Russia [Committee], no. 44240/12 and two others, 17 December 2019, concerning the defendant’s absence from the administrative appeal hearing, and Atyukov v. Russia [Committee], no. 74467/10, 9 July 2019, concerning the administrative defendant’s inability to confront witnesses against him). 12. In applications nos. 50794/16, 67791/17, 81932/17 and 2128/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined the applications 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 14. 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.”
15.
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 sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 16. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
No.
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
50794/16
17/08/2016
Yuliya Sergeyevna SELIVANOVA
1989
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
22/09/2013,
10.40 p.m.
23/09/2013,
6 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)‐(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

3,000
43080/17
02/06/2017
Nachyn Valentinovich SARYGLAR
1997
Samdan Andrey Grigoryevich
Kyzyl
29/06/2016, 2.50 p.m.
29/06/2016, 7.40 p.m.
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 June 2018)

3,000
67791/17
02/09/2017
Vyacheslav Petrovich VASILYEV
1987
Semkin Vladimir Borisovich
Tyumen
16/11/2016
17/11/2016
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 June 2018)

3,000
81932/17
30/11/2017
Magomed Akhmetovich ICHIYEV
1981
Magomadov Andarbek Sharanovich
Moscow
23/04/2017
24/04/2017
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 June 2018)

3,000
2128/18
12/12/2017
Roman Vladimirovich STRAKHOV
1972
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
12/06/2017
2.45 p.m.
12/06/2017
9 p.m.
Applicant taken 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),
Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art.
27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017)

3,000
39759/20
23/08/2020
Anton Aleksandrovich KLYUZHEV
1995

03/08/2019,
2.50 p.m.
03/08/2019,
11.55 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Applicant taken 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)
Art.
6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to examine the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,

Art.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,900
39776/20
22/08/2020
Damir Nailyevich MANZHUKOV
1986

03/06/2020
8 p.m.
05/06/2020
12.30 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.
72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art.
6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - from the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 09/06/2020,

Art.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,900

No.
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
50794/16
17/08/2016
Yuliya Sergeyevna SELIVANOVA
1989
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
22/09/2013,
10.40 p.m.
23/09/2013,
6 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)‐(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

3,000
43080/17
02/06/2017
Nachyn Valentinovich SARYGLAR
1997
Samdan Andrey Grigoryevich
Kyzyl
29/06/2016, 2.50 p.m.
29/06/2016, 7.40 p.m.
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 June 2018)

3,000
67791/17
02/09/2017
Vyacheslav Petrovich VASILYEV
1987
Semkin Vladimir Borisovich
Tyumen
16/11/2016
17/11/2016
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 June 2018)

3,000
81932/17
30/11/2017
Magomed Akhmetovich ICHIYEV
1981
Magomadov Andarbek Sharanovich
Moscow
23/04/2017
24/04/2017
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 June 2018)

3,000
2128/18
12/12/2017
Roman Vladimirovich STRAKHOV
1972
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
12/06/2017
2.45 p.m.
12/06/2017
9 p.m.
Applicant taken 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),
Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art.
27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017)

3,000
39759/20
23/08/2020
Anton Aleksandrovich KLYUZHEV
1995

03/08/2019,
2.50 p.m.
03/08/2019,
11.55 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Applicant taken 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)
Art.
6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to examine the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,

Art.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,900
39776/20
22/08/2020
Damir Nailyevich MANZHUKOV
1986

03/06/2020
8 p.m.
05/06/2020
12.30 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.
72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art.
6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - from the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 09/06/2020,

Art.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.