THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 63332/00 by Vladimir Ivanovich RYTSAREV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr P. Kūris , Mr R. Türmen , Mrs M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska , Mrs H.S. Greve , Mr A. Kovler , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 August 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Vladimir Ivanovich Rytsarev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Zhdimir in the Oryol Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. V. Suchkov, a lawyer practising in Oryol.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. Detention and its judicial review

On 8 July 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of having committed theft. He challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and detention in the Znamenskiy District Court of the Oryol Region with which he lodged complaints on 9 and 13 July 2000. On 27 July 2000 he made similar complaints to the Sovetskiy District Court of Oryol. The applicant submits that it took the investigator 45 days to communicate his application for release to the court and it happened only after he had filed his application to Strasbourg. His complaint was considered by the Sovetskiy District Court of Oryol on 5 September 2000. The court found that the arrest and detention were not lawful and ordered the applicant’s release. The applicant was released following this court decision.

2. Conditions of detention

The applicant submits that during the first five days of his detention he was not given water and food. He was not taken out for exercise, nor permitted to visit toilets as often as he needed. On 22 August 2000 he complained to a prosecutor about these conditions.

The prosecutor’s office examined the complaints and dismissed them as ill-founded on 23 August 2000.

The prosecutor found that breakfasts and dinners could not be served because the only public canteen of the village, where food for the prisoners was cooked, had worked with interruptions. Nevertheless, the applicant did receive a daily set meal, and his relatives supplied him with food parcels without any restrictions.

The prosecutor did not accept that the applicant had not been permitted to use toilets.

The prosecutor also found that the complaint about the shortage of water was inconsistent: at an earlier interview the applicant had told that the water had not quenched his thirst because it had been too warm, and that is why he had drunk more than usual and therefore needed to visit toilets more often.

Lastly, the prosecutor said that due to repair works there had been no courtyard suitable for detainees’ exercise. But on 22 August the applicant was nevertheless taken out for a walk when being brought to an investigator and to a court.

The prosecutor asserted that all the demands of the applicant were taken notice of and relevant instructions were given to the administration of the prison.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention was decided lasted too long.

2. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that for the first five days of his detention he was not given water and food, taken out for walks and was restricted in using a lavatory.

3. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he was not brought promptly before a judge or released pending trial.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the determination of his application for release lasted too long. Article 5 § 4 reads as follows:

“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.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about allegedly inhuman treatment by the investigative authorities. Article 3, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected ... to inhuman ... treatment ...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he was not brought promptly before a judge or released pending trial. Article 5 § 3 reads as follows:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

The Court notes Russia’s reservation in respect of this provision. The Court observes that the reservation refers, among other things, to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, under which a person could be detained on a decision of investigative authorities without there being any requirement for judicial supervision of the detention. The reservation has been found to comply with the requirements of Article 57 of the Convention (see Labzov v. Russia (dec.), no. 62208/00, unreported). Therefore a part of the complaint concerning judicial review of the applicant’s detention is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

As to the second part of the complaint concerning release pending trial, t he Court 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, among other authorities, Amuur v. France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36). In the instant case, the Sovetskiy District Court of Oryol by its decision of 5 September 2000 acknowledged that the applicant’s arrest and detention had been unlawful and ordered his release. The applicant was released following this decision. In the light of the Convention case law the Court considers that the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of Oryol of 5 September 2000 can be regarded as the national authorities’ acknowledgement in substance of the breach of the Convention, and the applicant’s release based on the said decision can be viewed as redress for the breach at issue (see, by contrast, Amuur , cited above, §§ 34-36; Eckle v. Germany , judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, §§ 64-70; and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §§ 41-45, ECHR 1999-VI). The applicant therefore can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention was decided and the alleged inhuman treatment during his detention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President