ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.10.2005<ДЕЛО ФЕДОТОВ (fedotov) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]


EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 5140/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 25.X.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fedotov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall, President,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr {M. Pellonpaa} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O"Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 October 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 5140/02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Igor Leonidovich Fedotov, on 18 December 2001.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented before the Court by Ms L. Stakhieva, a lawyer practising in Lipetsk. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had twice been detained without a legal basis and in inhuman conditions and that the domestic courts had not considered his claim for compensation for unlawful detention.
4. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
5. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).
6. By a decision of 23 November 2004, the Court declared the application partly admissible.
7. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
8. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Borovichi in the Novgorod Region.
A. Criminal charge against the applicant
9. On 7 May 1999 the prosecutor"s office of the Borovichi District began an investigation into the applicant"s dealings, as it suspected him of using his position as the president of a non-governmental organisation for personal gain. It was alleged, in particular, that he had used a grant of 5,000 US dollars (USD) to purchase computer equipment which he had kept at his home or, in the alternative, unlawfully given to a local law office.
10. On 13 October 1999 the prosecutor charged the applicant and issued an arrest warrant when he failed to attend the prosecutor"s office to countersign the charge sheet.
11. On 1 February 2000 a supervising prosecutor of the Novgorod Region quashed the decision to charge the applicant and cancelled the warrant. She found that the investigation was incomplete because pertinent facts had not been sufficiently examined.
12. On 9 February 2000 the Borovichi Criminal Police put the applicant"s name on the federal list of wanted persons.
13. On 20 March 2000 the applicant was charged again.
14. On 10 April 2000 a senior investigator from the Investigations Division of the Novgorod Regional Police dropped the charges against the applicant because there was no evidence that a criminal offence had been committed. On 4 May 2000 that decision was notified to the applicant"s lawyer.
B. The applicant"s detention in Moscow
1. Arrest on 14 - 15 June 2000
15. At 9.50 p.m. on 14 June 2000 the applicant was detained in the Izmaylovo Hotel in Moscow on the basis of the arrest warrant issued on 13 October 1999 because his name was still on the federal list of wanted persons.
16. The applicant remained at the police station for twelve hours, until 10 a.m. on 15 June 2000. He was interrogated, searched and allegedly verbally abused by police officers. He was released only after the Novgorod Regional Police had confirmed, by a faxed letter, that the arrest warrant had been cancelled.
17. The officer in command at the police station refused to issue the applicant with a document confirming that he had been detained for twelve hours.
2. Arrest on 6 - 7 July 2000
18. At 8.30 p.m. on 6 July 2000 the applicant was detained in Moscow on the basis of the same arrest warrant. He was handcuffed and escorted to the "Rostokino" Police Station of the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow.
19. According to the applicant, he was verbally abused by three police officers, one of whom also hit him in the chest. His requests for permission to make a phone call and to meet the officer in charge were ignored.
20. The applicant was not released until 6.15 p.m. on 7 July 2000, after confirmation had been received that the warrant had been cancelled. According to the applicant, during the entire period he spent in detention he received no water or food and was given no access to toilet facilities.
C. Disciplinary proceedings against the investigators
21. On 18 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Head of the Moscow Police and the Izmaylovskiy District Prosecutor"s Office. On 5 July 2000 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Prosecutor that he had been unlawfully detained and that the district prosecutor had failed to respond to his complaints. On 15 August 2000 he complained to the Prosecutor General about his unlawful detention in July 2000.
22. On 17 August 2000 a deputy director of the Operative Investigations Division of the Moscow Police informed the applicant that his detention on 14 June 2000 was considered lawful as he had been on the federal list of wanted persons. Since the applicant had not had any documents on him to show that the charges had been dropped, the police officers "had taken all appropriate measures to confirm or refute [his] statement about the unlawfulness of [his] detention".
23. On 18 September 2000 a deputy director of the Public Security Division of the Moscow Police confirmed to the applicant that he had been detained because his name was on the federal list of wanted persons. He maintained that the Moscow police officers had acted lawfully and that on both occasions responsibility for his detention lay with the Novgorod Regional Police as they had failed to update the database of wanted persons in time.
24. On 4 September 2000 the director of the Operative Investigations Division of the Moscow Police advised the applicant that the Borovichi Police Department was responsible for placing people"s names on, and removing them from, the wanted persons" list.
25. On 25 September 2000 a deputy prosecutor of the Izmaylovskiy District of Moscow wrote to the applicant to say that the blame for his detention lay with the Novgorod Regional police officers who had failed to remove his name from the wanted persons" list. He added that the Moscow Police had acted lawfully on the basis of the information available.
26. On 31 October 2000 a deputy prosecutor of the Novgorod Region informed the applicant that his name had been deleted from the wanted persons" list on 5 May 2000 and that notice thereof had been sent to the central database of the Ministry of the Interior on 16 May 2000. However, an investigator, Ms Romanova, had failed to notify the Borovichi Police Department that the arrest warrant had been cancelled on 1 February 2000, and it was that which had led to the applicant"s detention in Moscow and Lipetsk and the violations of his constitutional rights. The deputy prosecutor said that he had requested the director of the Investigations Department of the Novgorod Regional Police to examine the matter and to discipline those responsible for the violations of the applicant"s rights.
27. On 20 October 2000 a deputy director of the Internal Investigations Department of the Novgorod Regional Police wrote to inform the applicant that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the investigator who had failed to notify those concerned in time that the arrest warrant had been cancelled.
28. On 7 December 2000 an acting prosecutor of the Novgorod Region informed the applicant that Ms Romanova had been reprimanded for unspecified violations of the rules of criminal procedure.
29. After the application had been communicated to the respondent Government, the Ostankinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor"s Office carried out an inquiry into the applicant"s complaints of 2000. On 29 March 2004 it issued a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with his allegations of ill-treatment because there was no evidence of criminal conduct by any of the police officers. On 20 April 2004 the Moscow City Prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered a further inquiry.
30. According to the Government, further to a recommendation (представление) issued on 20 August 2004 by the Ostankinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor"s Office, the Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior reinforced the procedures for ensuring that the federal list of wanted persons was regularly updated.
D. Civil action for damages
31. In early 2001 the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance, the Prosecutor General"s Office and the Ministry of the Interior. He claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with the unlawful criminal proceedings and arrest.
32. On 29 August 2001 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow requested the "Rostokino" police station to provide the papers relating to the applicant"s detention on 6 - 7 July 2000, including the records of his arrest and body search and an extract from the custody record. It does not appear that the requested documents were provided.
33. On 18 September 2001 the Basmanniy District Court delivered judgment. It found that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been unlawful because they were ultimately discontinued for lack of evidence of a criminal offence. Having regard to the fact that "[the applicant] had given an undertaking not to leave the town and had not actually been taken into custody", the District Court awarded him 3,000 Russian roubles (RUR, 110 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It further awarded him RUR 14,976 for legal costs incurred in the criminal proceedings and RUR 462.14 for costs in the civil proceedings. The total amount came to RUR 18,438.14 (approximately EUR 675). The remainder of the applicant"s claims were dismissed.
34. The applicant appealed against the judgment. He complained, in particular, that the District Court had deliberately given an incomplete account of the circumstances of the case and that his claims for compensation for unlawful detention in June and July 2000 had not been considered in the judgment.
35. On 16 January 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 18 September 2001. It held that the applicant had not advanced any new arguments other than those that had been already examined by the District Court.
E. Enforcement of the judgment of 18 September 2001
36. On 20 January 2002 the applicant applied to the Basmanniy District Court for a writ of execution. Having received no reply, he wrote to the president of the court and to the Moscow City Prosecutor on 7 March, 15 May and 19 June 2002 to complain about the delay.
37. On 27 May 2002 the President of the Basmanniy District Court replied to the applicant, advising him that the writ had been sent to the court bailiffs on 18 March 2002 for enforcement.
38. On 19 June 2002 the applicant received a writ of execution for RUR 17,976. On 26 and 27 June 2002 he complained to the Presidents of the Basmanniy District Court and the Moscow City Court that the amount in the writ was less than the award in the judgment.
39. On 26 June 2002 the applicant requested the President of the Basmanniy District Court to rectify the error in the writ. He repeated his request on 29 July 2002, but to no avail, and so on 2 September 2002 sent a complaint to the Moscow City Court.
40. On 16 July 2002 the applicant sent the writ of execution for RUR 17,976 to the court bailiffs.
41. By a letter of 24 September 2002, the President of the Basmanniy District Court confirmed that the writ had been sent to the court bailiffs on 18 March 2002.
42. On 22 November 2002 the bailiffs" service of Interdistrict Office No. 2 of Moscow returned the writ for RUR 17,976 to the applicant, advising him to submit it directly to the Ministry of Finance.
43. Having received no response to his requests for rectification of the amount stated in the writ, the applicant renewed his request to the Basmanniy District Court to that effect on 19 September 2003 and returned the writ containing the error.
44. On 9, 10 and 15 February and 3 and 20 March 2004 the applicant wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, the Moscow City Prosecutor and the Basmanniy District Prosecutor to complain about the Basmanniy District Court"s persistent refusal to rectify the writ.
45. On 10 April 2004 the applicant received by post a writ of execution for RUR 18,446.54 dated 30 March 2004. On 16 April 2004 he submitted it to the Ministry of Finance for execution.
46. In a letter of 14 April 2004, the Supreme Court claimed that on 15 October 2003 a corrected writ of execution had been sent to the court bailiffs" service.
47. By a letter of 6 May 2004, the Moscow Main Directorate of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the bailiffs" service had searched its records since 1 January 2002 and had no trace of receiving a writ of execution for RUR 18,446.54.
48. On 15 March 2004 the applicant requested the Basmanniy District Court to adjust the award in the judgment of 18 September 2001 in line with inflation. On 24 November 2004 the court granted his claim in part, awarding him RUR 6,269 on account of inflation and RUR 6,000 in legal costs.
49. On 25 November 2004 the Ministry of Finance returned the writ to the applicant, saying that it was defective.
50. On 16 December 2004 the Basmanniy District Court issued a new writ and submitted it directly to the Ministry of Finance. In his

РЕШЕНИЕ Совета глав правительств СНГ"О ПОДГОТОВКЕ ПРОЕКТА ПЛАНА СОВМЕСТНЫХ МЕРОПРИЯТИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВ-УЧАСТНИКОВ СНГ В СВЯЗИ С 20-Й ГОДОВЩИНОЙ АВАРИИ НА ЧЕРНОБЫЛЬСКОЙ АЭС"(Принято в г. Астане 15.09.2004)  »
Международное законодательство »
Читайте также