THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 61558/15 Anton Olegovich BARANOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda , President, Pere Pastor Vilanova , Georgios A. Serghides , judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 November 2015,

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

The applicant, Mr Anton Olegovich Baranov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Tula.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin .

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

On 3 March 2015 the Proletarskiy District Court in Tula found the applicant guilty on corruption charges and sentenced him to three years ’ imprisonment and a fine. It held that the preventive measure in the form of placement in custody should remain unchanged until the conviction had become final.

On 3 June 2015 the Tula Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.

On 15 September 2015 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment of 3 June 2015, finding that the appeal court had failed to examine some grounds of appeal. It directed the appeal court to hold a new hearing.

Counsel for the applicant complained to the supervising prosecutor and to the president of the Regional Court, alleging that the applicant continued to be detained unlawfully, without a judicial decision.

On 21 October 2015 the Regional Court held a new appeal hearing and rejected the applicant ’ s appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention in the period from 15 September to 21 October 2015 had been unlawful.

THE LAW

The applicant claimed that his detention had ceased to be lawful after the Regional Court ’ s Presidium had set aside the appeal judgment without mentioning the matter of his continued detention. He alleged a breach of Article 5 of the Convention which provides in the relevant part:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save ... in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ...”

The Government submitted that, after the applicant had been convicted at first instance, the subsequent quashing of the appeal decision had had no effect on his procedural status. Accordingly, there was no need to apply a preventive measure. They invited the Court to distinguish the present case from the case of Tarakanov v. Russia , in which the applicant ’ s detention had not been covered by a detention order after the quashing of his conviction ( no. 20403/05 , §§ 46-49, 2 8 November 2013).

The Court notes that on 3 March 2015 the applicant was convicted and given a custodial sentence. Starting from that date he was lawfully detained after conviction by a competent court, the situation covered by Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and his detention was to remain lawful for the entire duration of his three-year sentence or his release on parole. Even after the appeal decision was set aside, the conviction remained in force and supplied a legal basis for his continued detention. The Court therefore accepts the Government ’ s argument that there was no need for the Regional Court ’ s Presidium to review the detention matter. This element distinguishes the present case from those cases in which it was the applicant ’ s conviction that had been quashed (see Tarakanov , cited above, and Kleyn v. Russia , no. 44925/06 , §§ 34-36, 5 January 2016).

It follows that the applicant ’ s complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 October 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Branko Lubarda              Deputy Registrar President