TEKHNYUK v. and 9 other applications
Doc ref: 55770/11;2682/12;15270/17;18276/17;43080/17;67791/17;74201/17;81932/17;13420/18;26023/18 • ECHR ID: 001-200754
Document date: January 7, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
Communicated on 7 January 2020
Published on 27 January 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 55770/11 Vladislav Vasilyevich TEKHNYUK against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern short periods of unrecorded detention which the Court has earlier held to constitute a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia , no. 47837/06 , 18 September 2014, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others , 26 June 2018). Some of the applicants also contest the lawfulness and reasonableness of their detention, as well as speediness of examination of their appeals against detention decisions. One applicant complains also under Article 3 of the Convention about his ill-treatment by electric shock during his unrecorded detention.
As shown in the table below, the applicants used one or two of the following remedies:
1. Request to open criminal proceedings against policemen concerned and, when that request was refused, complaint to a court about the refusal under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“the CCrP ”);
2. Complaint under Article 125 of the CCrP about unlawful actions of law-enforcement officials;
3. Complaint to the court examining the application to place the applicant in pre-trial detention;
4. Issue raised during the criminal proceedings against the applicant;
5. Application to a court to calculate the prison term running from the alleged date of actual arrest;
6. A civil action.
Given the array of the used remedies the rapporteur proposes to seek the parties ’ opinion on the effectiveness of those remedies for the purposes of the exhaustion requirement.
Application no.
Applicant ’ s name
Date and time
(1) of the applicant ’ s alleged arrest and
(2) when the arrest was formally recorded
Total number of hours of unrecorded detention
Type of exhaustion
1.
55770/11
Tekhnyuk
(1) 06/08/2009 (1 p.m.) –
(2) 07/08/2009 (11.50 a.m.)
About 23 hours
1. Complaint under Article 125 of CCrP about the refusal to open a criminal case against policemen;
2. Request to a court to calculate his prison term running from the day of the alleged actual arrest
2.
2682/12
Veretennikov and Others
(1) 07/02/2010 (7 p.m.) –
(2) 08/02/2019 (10 a.m.)
About 15 hours
1. Complaint under Article 125 of the CCrP about the refusal to open a criminal case against policemen;
2. civil action
3.
15270/17
Khudaynatov
(1) 08/07/2016 (5 a.m.) –
(2) 08/07/2016 (5.20 p.m.)
About 12 hours
Complaint to the court examining the request to place the applicant in pre ‑ trial detention
4.
18276/17
Shumkov
(1) 24/11/2016 (2.50 p.m.) –
(2) 24/11/2016 (11.15 p.m.)
About 8 hours
Complaint to the court examining the request to place the applicant in pre ‑ trial detention
5.
43080/17
Saryglar
(1) 29/06/2016 (2.50 p.m.) –
(2) 29/06/2016 (7.40 p.m.)
About 5 hours
Issue raised during the criminal proceedings against the applicant
6.
67791/17
Vasilyev
(1) 16/11/2016 (9 a.m.) –
(2) 17/11/2016 (8 a.m.)
About 23 hours
Complaint under Article 125 of the “ CCrP ” about the refusal to open a criminal case against policemen
7.
74201/17
Manannikov
A.
(1) 22/03/2006 (2 p.m.) –
(2) 23/03/2006 (11 a.m.)
B.
(1) 20/04/2006 (10 a.m.) –
(2) 20/04/2006 (4 p.m.)
C.
(1) 20/11/2006 (10 a.m.) –
(2) 20/11/2006 (5 p.m.)
A. 21 hours
B. 6 hours
C. 7 hours
Complaints under Article 125 of the CCrP about unlawful actions of law ‑ enforcement officers
8.
81932/17
Ichiyev
(1) 23/04/2017 (6 p.m.) –
(2) 24/04/2017 (7.30 p.m.)
About 25,5 hours
Complaint to the court examining the request to place the applicant in pre ‑ trial detention
9.
13420/18
Yaroshenko
(1) 29/05/2015 (11 p.m.) –
(2) 31/05/2015 (1.40 a.m.)
About 27 hours
1. Complaint under Article 125 of the “ CCrP ” about the refusal to open a criminal case against policemen (proceedings terminated after the applicant ’ s conviction)
2. Issue raised during the criminal proceedings against the applicant
10.
26023/18
Novikov
(1) 13/10/2016 (12 a.m.) –
(2) 13/10/2016 (9.55 p.m.)
About 10 hours
Issue raised during the criminal proceedings against the applicant
COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, was there an effective remedy in respect of their alleged unrecorded detention available in theory and in practice at the relevant time?
The Government are invited to submit relevant case-law examples.
2. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was their detention recorded as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia , no. 47837/06, 18 September 2014, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018)?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. (15270/17, Khudaynatov v. Russia ) Was the applicant ’ s detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s detention authorised by a court within forty-eight hours of his arrest, as required by national law?
2. (15270/17, Khudaynatov v. Russia ) Did the authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant ’ s placement in pre-trial detention as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. (81932/17, Ichiyev v. Russia ; 32241/18) Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of those proceedings comply with the “speedy” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Snyatovskiy v. Russia , no. 10341/07, § 62, 13 December 2016)?
4. (67791/17, Vasilyev v. Russia ) Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment on 16 November 2016, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see § 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), did the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities comply with Article 3 of the Convention?