Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55

July 2003

Smirnova v. Russia - 46133/99 and 48183/99

Judgment 24.7.2003 [Section III]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Refusal to return identity card on release from detention on remand: violation

Article 5

Article 5-3

Reasonableness of pre-trial detention

Length of detention on remand – repeated periods of detention: violation

Facts : Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants, twin sisters, in 1993. The first applicant was arrested in August 1995 and detained on remand. Her identity card (“internal passport”) was withdrawn and put in the case file. She was released in December 1997 but re -detained in March 1999, when the second applicant was also arrested following the resumption of the proceedings against her. Each of the applicants was subsequently released and re-detained on several occasions until their convictions were quashed in Apri l 2002. The authorities had refused to return the first applicant’s identity card until October 1999, as a result of which she encountered difficulties in everyday life. In particular, she claims that she was refused employment, free medical care, installa tion of a telephone and registration of her marriage. Moreover, an administrative fine was imposed on her when she was unable to produce her identity card.

Law : Article 5 § 1 and  § 3 – The applicants were both detained on four occasions, for periods totalling approximately 4 years 4 months (including just over 2 years after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia) and 1 year 6½ months respectively. It was necessar y to examine not only whether the total periods were reasonable but also whether the repetitive nature of the detention complied with Article 5 § 3. The reasons provided by the domestic courts appeared insufficient, the available decisions being remarkably terse and lacking any detailed examination of the applicants’ respective situations. The repeated re-detention of the applicants was not, therefore, based on sufficiently reasoned decisions.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 6 § 1 – The proceed ings against the first applicant had lasted in total approximately 9 years 2 months (including almost 4 years within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis ), from which a period of 6½ months during which she had absconded had to be excluded, giving a to tal period be taken into consideration of 3 years, 4 months and 19 days. The proceedings against the second applicant had lasted almost 7 years 7 months (including almost 4 years within the Court’s jurisdiction), from which two periods during which she had absconded had to be excluded, giving a total period to be taken into consideration of almost 2 years 6 months. There were periods of inactivity on the part of the domestic courts for which no justification had been provided.

Conclusion : violation (unanimo usly).

Article 8 – While the first applicant had not substantiated any concrete event since entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia which would constitute, at least arguably, disrespect for her private life, the interference in her private life al legedly flowed not from an instantaneous act but from a number of everyday inconveniences taken in their entirety, which lasted until October 1999. The Court had temporal jurisdiction at least in that respect. It was established that in everyday life Russi an citizens often have to prove their identity, even when performing certain mundane tasks. Moreover, the internal passport is required for more crucial needs such as finding employment and obtaining medical care. The deprivation of the applicant’s passpor t therefore constituted a continuing interference with the right to respect for her private life. Domestic law provides that the passport must be returned when an individual is released from detention on remand and the Government had not shown that the fai lure to return it when she was released from detention on remand had any basis in law.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants 3,500 euros and 2,000 euros respectively in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also m ade an award in respect of costs and expenses.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Note s