THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 17262/19 D.A. against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President, Dmitry Dedov , Peeter Roosma, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2019,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms D.A., is a Russian national, who was born in 2003 and lives in Perm. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Laptev and Ms E. Pershakova from the Public Verdict fund in Moscow and Mr D. Galitskiy , her representative in the domestic proceedings.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights .

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

4 . On 15 April 2016 the Industrialnyy District Court in Perm, on an application by the police, ordered the applicant ’ s placement in a detention centre for juvenile offenders for a period of thirty days because of her “anti ‑ social behaviour” and “propensity to commit offences”. On 4 May 2016 the President of the Perm Regional Court quashed the placement order on appeal and instructed the lower court to undertake a new assessment of the matter. The applicant was released on the same day.

5 . On 9 June 2016 the District Court rejected the application for the applicant ’ s placement, finding that her three-week stay in the centre had been conducive to improving her behaviour and that there was no need for her to stay in the centre for one additional week.

6 . The applicant, represented by her mother, sued the domestic authorities for compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

7 . On 17 November 2017 the Sverdlovskiy District Court in Perm dismissed her claim. It held that the kind of deprivation of liberty to which she had been subjected was not included in the exhaustive list of situations giving rise to strict liability under Article 1070 of the Civil Code. On 14 February 2018 the Perm Regional Court dismissed her appeal.

8 . On 7 June 2018 the Regional Court refused her leave to appeal to the cassation instance. It added that the right to compensation could have accrued to her only if there was insufficient evidence that she had committed offences. However, the District Court merely determined that her detention was no longer necessary “because she had already served her sentence”.

9 . Counsel for the applicant applied for constitutional review of the provisions of the legislation on juvenile offenders and Article 1070 of the Civil Code.

10 . On 29 November 2019 the Constitutional Court determined that, to be compatible with the Constitution, Article 1070 of the Civil Code ought to be interpreted as implying strict liability of State officials for the damage caused by unlawful placement of a minor in a centre for juvenile offenders.

11 . On 28 February 2020 the Sverdlovskiy District Court allowed an application to re-open compensation proceedings on the basis of the Constitutional Court ’ s decision. On 3 June 2020 it carried out a new examination of the applicant ’ s claim and awarded her 150,000 Russian roubles (approximately 1,950 euros (EUR) on that date) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damages caused by the deprivation of liberty to which she had been subjected. On 7 September 2020 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

12 . The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that she had been denied compensation for a deprivation of liberty. She also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the Regional Court ’ s decision of 7 June 2018 had declared her guilty by referring to a “sentence” she had already “served”.

THE LAW

13 . The Court notes that the judicial decisions which formed the basis for the applicant ’ s complaints have been set aside and that her claim has been adjudicated anew. A breach of her right to compensation was acknowledged at domestic level and she was awarded a sum of money for the eighteen days ’ detention in the centre for juvenile offenders. The quantum of damages assessed at EUR 108 per day of detention was neither “negligible” in absolute terms nor disproportionate to the Court ’ s awards in similar cases (see, for a summary of the relevant standards, Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia , nos . 52241/14 and 74222/14 , §§ 23-25, 10 July 2018). Since the applicant has obtained adequate redress at national level, she is no longer a “victim” of the alleged violations.

14 . Accordingly, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 April 2021 .

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli Deputy Registrar President