European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KENAREVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 71779/17 and 5 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

9 February 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kenareva and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Ioannis Ktistakis,
          Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023,

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, the relevant details of the applications and their complaints 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

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention

6.  The applicants complained that their deprivation of liberty on 26 and 27 March 2017 was in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

7.  The Government has not contested that during the administrative‑offence proceedings the applicants raised the issues relating to this complaint. They also did not argue that that remedy was not to be taken into account, as to the exhaustion requirement or application of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 95-102, 10 April 2018).

8.  In the leading case of Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of similar issues. 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 (see, as an example, Chernozub v. Russia [Committee], no. 8777/12, § 8, 13 October 2022), the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ detention at the police station after the preparation of the administrative offence record was not justified and was in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Russian law.

9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

10.  In applications nos. 72316/17, 72319/17, 72365/17, 72366/17 and 72370/17 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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.

11.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 21-28 and 37-43, 8 October 2019, concerning delayed review of the applicants’ sentence of administrative detention; as regards the complaint under Article 10 in application no. 72316/17 about escorting to the police station interrupting a live Internet broadcast and sentence of ten-day detention, see Dilek Aslan v. Turkey, no. 34364/08, §§ 67-68, 20 October 2015; Pal v. the United Kingdom, no. 44261/19, §§ 56-63, 30 November 2021; Kapustin v. Russia [Committee], no. 36801/09, § 34, 8 October 2019 and, mutatis mutandis, on lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for an interference, Mukhin v. Russia, no. 3642/10, § 139, 14 December 2021, and RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021).

12.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the other aspects of the applicants’ complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints concerning the unlawful deprivation of liberty, as described in the appended table, and the other complaints under well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints;

3.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and of Protocol No. 7 to it, as regards the other complaints raised under well‑established case-law (see the appended table);

5.      Holds

(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;

6.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, 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))