In the case of Alikhonov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 July 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
35692/11) 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 an Uzbekistani national, Mr Ebodulla Tangiriyevich
Alikhonov (“the applicant”). On 13 June 2011 the applicant introduced a complaint
under Article 3 of the Convention about his extradition to Uzbekistan. On 29 June 2011 he submitted an application form in which he further complained
under Article 5 of the Convention about his detention with a view to
extradition and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective
remedy in respect of his grievances under Article 3 of the Convention.
The applicant was represented by Ms N.
Yermolayeva and Ms Ye. Ryabinina, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On 15 June 2011 the
President of the First Section, acting upon the applicant’s request of
14 June 2011, granted priority treatment to the case under Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court and indicated to the Russian Government, under Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until
further notice.
On 31 August 2011 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Artemovskiy,
Sverdlovsk Region.
A. Extradition proceedings and the applicant’s
detention
In July 2009 the applicant moved from Uzbekistan to Russia.
On 22 February 2010 the Investigating
Division of the Department of the Interior of the Kashkadarya Region of the Uzbekistan Republic charged the applicant in absentia with participation in an
extremist religious organisation and ordered his arrest. The applicant’s name
was put on the wanted persons list.
On 29 October 2010 the Russian authorities
arrested the applicant and informed the Uzbekistani ambassador in Russia thereof. The Uzbekistani authorities confirmed their request for the applicant’s
extradition.
On 30 October 2010 the Town Prosecutor
authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition. In particular, the
prosecutor stated as follows:
“The offence [the applicant is charged with] as provided for in
Article 244-2 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Uzbekistan Republic, is a serious one, ... it entails a custodial sentence. In the Russian
Federation a similar offence would be classified as per
Article 282.1 § 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
as participation in an extremist group and might entail, inter alia, a
custodial sentence of up to two years.
[The applicant] is a national of a foreign state, he has not
applied for [Russian nationality]. There are no criminal proceedings pending
against him in Russia. His name is on the international wanted persons’ list.
He is sought by a member state of the Convention On Legal Assistance and Legal
Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 22 January 1993 in
connection with an offence entailing a custodial sentence exceeding one year.
Pursuant to Article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of the Russian Federation, [the applicant] can be extradited to the law
enforcement bodies of the Uzbekistan Republic for the purpose of criminal
prosecution.
In order to ensure the [applicant’s] extradition to the
authorities of the Uzbekistan Republic, it is necessary to remand him in
custody pursuant to the decision of the Karshi Court of the Kashkadarya Region
of the Uzbekistan Republic.”
On 8 December 2010 the Town Prosecutor
issued another order remanding the applicant in custody with a view to
extradition reiterating verbatim the reasoning of his previous order of
30 October 2010.
On 10 December 2010 the Town Prosecutor
asked the court to extend the applicant’s detention pending extradition until
30 April 2011 and on 17 December 2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court
of Yekaterinburg authorised the applicant’s detention until 29 April 2011.
In particular, the court reasoned as follows:
“Having regard to the nature of the offence [the applicant] is
charged with and the danger it presents to the public order, the court
considers ... the prosecutor’s arguments to be well-founded given that [the
applicant] is charged with a serious offence entailing a custodial sentence
from five to fifteen years as per the Criminal Code of the Uzbekistan Republic,
that his name was put on the wanted persons’ list, [and] that he is a national
of a foreign state. In view of the said circumstances the court considers that,
if released, [the applicant] might continue his criminal activities or abscond ...
The circumstances underlying [the authorities’ decision] to
remand the applicant in custody have not ceased to exist. The court does not
discern any circumstances, including the applicant’s condition, that would
render him unfit for detention.”
On 20 December 2010 the applicant’s counsel
lodged an appeal against the decision of 17 December 2010 alleging that
there were no grounds for the applicant’s extradition and that he should be
released. The appeal hearing was first scheduled for 21 January 2011.
On 21 January 2011 the
Regional Court found that (1) the applicant had not been apprised of his right
to take part in the appeal hearing; (2) other parties to the proceedings
had not been informed of the appeal lodged; and (3) the decision had not been
translated into Uzbek. The Regional Court adjourned the hearing and remitted
the case-file to the District Court in order to rectify the noted procedural
irregularities. The new appeal hearing was scheduled for 2 March 2011.
On 18 February 2011 the Deputy General
Prosecutor of the Russian Federation granted the Uzbekistani request and
ordered the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan. The applicant appealed.
On 2 March 2011 the Regional Court considered it necessary to obtain additional materials necessary for
consideration of the appeal, adjourned the hearing and scheduled a new one for
4 March 2011.
On 4 March 2011 the Sverdlovsk Regional
Court upheld the detention order of 17 December 2010 on appeal.
On 7 April 2011 the Regional Court upheld
the prosecutor’s decision of 18 February 2011. The applicant appealed.
On 30 April 2011 the applicant was released
due to the expiry of the maximum period of his lawful detention.
On 20 June 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia
quashed the decision of 7 April 2011 and remitted the matter for fresh
consideration.
On 2 August 2011 the Regional Court quashed
the decision of 18 February 2011. In particular, the court noted as
follows:
“... the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Uzbekinstan Republic guarantees that the criminal prosecution in respect of [the applicant]
will be carried out in strict compliance with law.
However, it follows from the documents prepared by the UN and
various NGO’s and submitted by the defence as well as from the judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights that in the Uzbekistan Republic defendants and
convicted persons are often subjected to ill-treatment; torture and violence
are not uncommon.
In a number of judgments the European Court of Human Rights
found that the mere fact of a person’s remand in custody in that country subjected
him to a risk of ill-treatment.
Having regard to the above, the court concludes that the
decision of the Deputy General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation of
18 February 2011 to extradite [the applicant] to the Uzbekistani
law-enforcement authorities ... is not lawful and shall be quashed.”
On 29 September 2011 the Supreme Court of
Russia upheld the decision of 2 August 2011 on appeal.
B. Application for asylum
On 30 December 2010 the applicant lodged an
application for political asylum in Russia. On 14 February 2011 he was
interviewed by the regional migration service.
On 15 March 2011 the regional migration
department dismissed his request, noting that the applicant “takes advantage of
the asylum proceedings in order to escape criminal liability in connection with
the crime he has committed ... in Uzbekistan.” The applicant appealed.
On 25 May 2011 the Federal Migration
Service upheld the decision of 15 March 2011. The applicant appealed to the
court.
On 13 October 2011 the Basmannyy District
Court of Moscow found the decision of 25 May 2011 lawful. On
6 February 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of
13 October 2011 on appeal.
On 20 February 2011 the applicant submitted
a request for temporary asylum. According to the applicant, the proceedings are
still pending.
II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW
A. The Russian Constitution
The Constitution guarantees
the right to liberty (Article 22):
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and personal
integrity.
2. Arrest, placement in custody and detention are
permitted only on the basis of a judicial decision. Prior to a judicial
decision, an individual may not be detained for longer than forty-eight hours.”
B. The European Convention on Extradition
Article 16 of the European
Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 (CETS no. 024), to which Russia is a party, provides as follows:
“1. In case of urgency the competent authorities of
the requesting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought.
The competent authorities of the requested Party shall decide the matter in
accordance with its law.
...
4. Provisional arrest may be terminated if, within
eighteen days of arrest, the requested Party has not received the request for extradition
and the documents mentioned in Article 12. It shall not, in any event, exceed
forty days from the date of that arrest. The possibility of provisional release
at any time is not excluded, but the requested Party shall take any measures
which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought.”
C. The 1993 Minsk Convention
The CIS Convention on legal aid and legal
relations in civil, family and criminal matters (the 1993 Minsk Convention), to
which both Russia and Uzbekistan are parties, provides that a request for
extradition must be accompanied by a detention order (Article 58 § 2).
A person whose extradition is sought may be
arrested before receipt of a request for his or her extradition. In such cases
a special request for arrest, containing a reference to the detention order and
indicating that a request for extradition will follow, must be sent. A person
may also be arrested in the absence of such a request if there are reasons to
suspect that he or she has committed, in the territory of the other Contracting
Party, an offence entailing extradition. The other Contracting Party must be
immediately informed of the arrest (Article 61).
A person arrested under Article 61 must be
released if no request for extradition is received within forty days of the
arrest (Article 62 § 1).
D. The Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCrP”)
Chapter 13 of the Russian
Code of Criminal Procedure (“Preventive measures”) governs the use of
preventive measures (меры
пресечения),
which include, in particular, placement in custody. Custody may be ordered by a
court on an application by an investigator or a prosecutor if a person is
charged with an offence carrying a sentence of at least two years’
imprisonment, provided that a less restrictive preventive measure cannot be
used (Article 108 §§ 1 and 3). The period of detention pending investigation
may not exceed two months (Article 109 § 1). A judge may extend that period to
six months (Article 109 § 2). Further extensions to twelve months, or in
exceptional circumstances eighteen months, may be granted only if the person is
charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences (Article 109 §
3). No extension beyond eighteen months is permissible and the detainee must be
released immediately (Article 109 § 4).
Chapter 16 (“Complaints
about acts and decisions by courts and officials involved in criminal proceedings”)
provides for the judicial review of decisions and acts or failures to act by an
investigator or a prosecutor that are capable of adversely affecting the
constitutional rights or freedoms of parties to criminal proceedings (Article
125 § 1). The court must examine the complaint within five days of its receipt.
Chapter 54 (“Extradition of
a person for criminal prosecution or execution of sentence”) regulates
extradition procedures. On receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied
by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court, a prosecutor must decide on the
preventive measure to be applied to the person whose extradition is sought. The
measure must be applied in accordance with the established procedure (Article
466 § 1). A person who has been granted asylum in Russia because of
possible political persecution in the State seeking his extradition may not be
extradited to that State (Article 464 § 1 (2)).
An extradition decision
made by the Prosecutor General may be challenged before a court. Issues of
guilt or innocence are not within the scope of judicial review, which is
limited to an assessment of whether the extradition order was made in
accordance with the procedure set out in the relevant international and
domestic law (Article 463 §§ 1 and 6).
E. Directive Decision no. 22 of 29 October 2009
In Directive Decision
No. 22, adopted by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation on 29 October 2009 (“Directive Decision of 29 October 2009”), it was
stated that, pursuant to Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP, only a
court could order placement in custody of a person in respect of whom an
extradition request was pending and the authorities of the country requesting
extradition had not submitted a court decision to place him or her in custody.
The judicial authorisation of placement in custody in that situation was to be
carried out in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP and following a prosecutor’s
petition to place that person in custody. In deciding to remand a person in
custody a court was to examine if there existed factual and legal grounds for
applying the preventive measure. If the extradition request was accompanied by
a detention order of a foreign court, a prosecutor might remand the person in
custody without a Russian court’s authorisation (Article 466 § 2 of the CCrP)
for a period not exceeding two months, and the prosecutor’s decision could be
challenged in the courts under Article 125 of the CCrP. In extending a person’s
detention with a view to extradition a court was to apply Article 109 of the
CCrP.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant stated in his memorial that he did not wish to pursue
his complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the
risk that he would be subjected to torture and ill-treatment in the event of
his extradition to Uzbekistan.
Referring to the quashing of the Deputy
Prosecutor General’s decision by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 2 August
2011 as upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 29 September 2011, the
Government considered that the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim
of the violation alleged.
The Court accepts that, in these circumstances,
the applicant no longer wishes to pursue this part of the application, within
the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance
with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances
regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its
Protocols which require the continued examination of the applicant’s complaints
under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to
strike this part of the application out of the list.
II. RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT
The Court considers that the interim measure
indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see paragraph 3 above) must be lifted.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that he had been
deprived of his liberty in contravention of the guarantees set forth in
Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. In particular, he
alleged that the detention orders of 30 October, 8 and 17 December
2010 had been unlawful. He further complained under
Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his appeal against the
decision of 17 December 2010 had been considered belatedly and that he had
not been able to obtain an effective judicial review of his detention extended
on 17 December 2010. Article 5, in so far as relevant, 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:
...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention ... of a person
against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
...
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest
or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of
his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if
the detention is not lawful.
...”
Referring to Article 35 § 1 of
the Convention, the Government considered the applicant’s complaint to be
inadmissible. They further suggested that, following the quashing of the
prosecutor’s decision of 18 February 2011, it remained open to the
applicant to seek damages resulting from the alleged violation of his rights
set out in Article 5 of the Convention, which he had failed to do.
The applicant maintained his complaint. He also
pointed out that the Government had failed to raise the issue of the six-month
rule in respect of his complaints.
A. Admissibility
1. The applicant’s victim status and the issue of
exhaustion of domestic remedies
In so far as the Government may be understood to
be suggesting that the applicant has lost his victim status and has chosen not
to apply for compensation for the violation of his right to liberty, the Court
reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it “may receive applications
from any person ... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High
Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols
thereto”. It falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged
violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant
can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of
the proceedings under the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 30, ECHR 2002-III).
The Court also reiterates that a decision or
measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive
him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have
acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for,
the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany,
15 July 1982, §§ 69 et seq., Series A no. 51; Amuur v. France,
25 June 1996, § 36, Reports
1996-III; Dalban
v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark
(dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).
Turning to the circumstances of the present
case, the Court observes that on 2 August 2011 the Regional Court quashed
the decision of 18 February 2011 which ordered the applicant’s
extradition. On 29 September 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the
decision of 2 August 2011 on appeal. The Regional Court found the decision
to extradite the applicant unlawful and quashed it. It remained silent,
however, as to the applicant’s detention pending extradition.
In such circumstances, the Court concludes that
at no point did the Russian authorities acknowledge, at least in substance,
that the applicant’s detention was unlawful or that he had been unable to obtain
a speedy review of his detention. Accordingly, it was not incumbent on the
applicant to bring an action for damages seeking compensation to obtain
redress. The Court therefore finds that the applicant can still claim to be the
“victim” of a breach of Article 5 of the Convention and dismisses the
Government’s objection.
2. Application of the six-month rule
The Court reiterates that it is not open to it
to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government
have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Blečić
v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).
In this connection, the Court observes that the
applicant’s complaint concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the arrest orders of
30 October 2010 and 8 December 2010 and a subsequent order extending
his detention of 17 December 2010. The latter was upheld on appeal on 4
March 2011.
The Court further observes that the applicant
lodged his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention on 29 June 2011.
It follows that the applicant’s complaints concerning the arrest orders issued
on 30 October and 8 December 2010 has been lodged out of time and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention
for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit.
The Court notes that the complaints in the part concerning
the lawfulness and review of the applicant’s detention authorised by the court
order of 17 December 2010 as upheld on appeal on 4 March 2011 are not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Lawfulness of detention
(a) General principles
The Court reiterates at the outset that Article
5 enshrines a fundamental human right, namely, the protection of the individual
against arbitrary interference by the State with his or her right to liberty
(see Aksoy
v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 76, Reports
1996-VI). The text of Article 5 makes it clear that the guarantees it contains
apply to “everyone” (see A.
and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 162, ECHR
2009). Sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds on which
persons may be deprived of their liberty, and no deprivation of liberty will be
lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (ibid,
§ 163).
The Court also 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, and notably the courts, to
interpret domestic law, and in particular, rules of a procedural nature (see Toshev
v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006). The
words “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 do
not merely refer back to domestic law; they also relate to the quality of this
law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in
all Articles of the Convention (see Stafford
v. the United Kingdom [GC],
no. 46295/99, § 63, ECHR 2002-IV). Quality in this sense implies that where a national law authorises
deprivation of liberty, it must be sufficiently accessible and precise, in
order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see, among others, Dougoz
v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 55, ECHR 2001-II).
(b) Application of the principles in the present case
Turning to the circumstances of the present
case, the Court observes that on 17 December 2010 the applicant’s
detention with a view to extradition was extended by a District Court. The
lawfulness of the order was reviewed and confirmed by the appeal court.
The Court also observes that the District Court specified
the maximum length of time the applicant could be detained in the detention
order. Both the District and the Regional Courts assessed the lawfulness of
that detention and various circumstances which were considered to be relevant
to it.
The Court does not find any reason to disagree
with the domestic assessment. As prescribed by Article 109 § 2 of the CCrP, the
period of the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition was terminated
on 30 April 2011 upon the expiry of the six-month term.
The applicant did not put forward any other argument,
either before the domestic courts or this Court, which would prompt the latter to
consider that his detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1 (f)
of the Convention. Under such circumstances, the Court does not find that the
domestic courts acted in bad faith, that they neglected to apply the relevant
legislation correctly or that the applicant’s detention during the relevant
period of time was unlawful or arbitrary.
There has therefore been no violation of Article
5 § 1 of the Convention as regards the lawfulness of the applicant’s
detention from 17 September 2010 to 30 April 2011.
2. Review of detention
The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the
Convention, in guaranteeing to persons detained a right to institute
proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims
their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy
judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and ordering its
termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski
v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). The question whether
the right to a speedy decision has been respected must be determined in the
light of the circumstances of each case (see Rehbock
v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII).
Turning to the circumstances of the present
case, the Court observes that on 17 December 2010 the District Court extended
the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition given the gravity of the
charges against him and danger of absconding. In the appeal lodged on
20 December 2010, the applicant’s counsel contested these grounds. In the
Court’s opinion, these were straightforward matters, and it has not been argued
by the Government that the case in itself disclosed any complex features.
The Court further observes that the appeal
hearing took place only on 4 March 2011, that is, two months and thirteen days
after the appeal was lodged. In this connection, the Court notes that there is
nothing in the materials before it to suggest that the applicant or his counsel
in some way contributed to the length of the appeal proceedings. It therefore
follows that the entire length of the appeal proceedings is attributable to the
domestic authorities. The Regional Court adjourned the appeal hearing twice
owing to the lower court’s failure to make all the necessary preparatory steps
(see paragraphs 13 and 15 above). The Government did not provide any
justification for these delays.
Having regard to the above, the Court considers
that the period of two months and thirteen days cannot be considered compatible
with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4. There has therefore been a
violation of that provision.
In view of the above, the Court does not
consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the applicant’s allegations concerning
the lack of an effective procedure by which he could have challenged his
detention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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.”
A. Damage
The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
The Government did not comment.
The Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained some anguish and suffering as a result of the lack of a speedy review
of his detention with a view to extradition and that this would not be
adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. However, the amount
claimed by the applicant appears to be excessive. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, it awards him EUR 3,000 under that head, plus any tax
that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 4,300 for
the legal fee incurred before the Court.
The Government did not comment
According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has
been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the fact
that the applicant has only been successful in part, to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the sum of EUR 850 for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
The Court 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
1. Decides to strike the applicant’s
complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention out of its list;
2. Decides that the indication made to the
Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court must be lifted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the
lawfulness and review of the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition as
authorised by the court order of 17 December 2010 admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged
unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 17 December 2010 to
30 April 2011;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy
review of the applicant’s detention as authorised by the court order of
17 December 2010;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles applicable
at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and
expenses;
(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;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 July 2012,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
