Communicated on 24 March 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 57219/15 Arina Aleksandrovna RODINA against Russia lodged on 13 November 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Arina Aleksandrovna Rodina , is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and is detained in Moscow. She is represented before the Court by Ms K.A. Moskalenko, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 24 June 2015 Lieutenant K. who was investigating a Mr K. for fraud in real estate business decided to severe a case against Mr K. ’ s alleged accomplice, the applicant. On 18 August 2015 Lt K. issued an order to put the applicant on the wanted persons ’ list because her whereabouts were unknown.

After Mr K. ’ s conviction, on 17 September 2015 the applicant came to the police and gave a statement of surrender and confession admitting her participation in the fraud. After giving the statement the applicant returned home.

Upon the investigator ’ s summons the applicant came to the police on 19 September 2015. Lt K. charged her with fraud and questioned as a suspect. Lt K. also ordered that the applicant should remain free under the obligation not to leave the place.

On 21 September 2015 Lt K. ’ s superior officer quashed the order of 19 September 2015 to impose on the applicant the obligation not to leave the place. He referred to the facts that the applicant had been in hiding and on the search list and ordered to choose another measure of restraint taking into account the gravity of the applicant ’ s crimes.

On the same date at about 4 p.m. the applicant came to the police upon summons to attend her confrontation with a witness. After the confrontation at about 5.40 p.m. the applicant was informed that the measure of restraint (the obligation not to leave the place) had been quashed and that she would be placed into detention. The applicant felt unwell and lost consciousness, an emergency ambulance was called twice to assist her at about 7.20 pm. and 10.20 p.m. At 10.40 p.m. Lt K. drew the record of the applicant ’ s arrest as a suspect. The applicant ’ s lawyer noted in the arrest record that the applicant had been in fact deprived of her liberty since 4 p.m. and, thus, the arrest record had been drawn later than three hours after her actual arrest.

In the morning of 23 September 2015 the applicant was brought to the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) for the hearing on her placement into detention. During the hearing she again felt unwell and at about 7.10 p.m. an ambulance attended to her. When the hearing resumed, the applicant ’ s lawyer requested that her client should be released. She relied on the facts that the applicant had voluntarily come to the police, had confessed her guilt and had been cooperating with the investigating authorities; and that the applicant had begun compensating by money transfers the victims of her fraud. She further argued that the applicant had not been in hiding but had been living in her summer house; that she had complied with the investigator ’ s summons to appear on 19 and 21 September 2015. The applicant ’ s lawyer also indicated that the applicant had a permanent place of residence and employment; that she had three dependent children, including two minors born in 2006 and 2014; that she had health problems. The applicant ’ s lawyer suggested putting bail for her in the amount of 1,000,000 Russian roubles ( RUB).

The judge decided to authorise the applicant ’ s detention for one month invoking the following reasons. The applicant was charged of grave crimes against property each of which could be punished by an imprisonment of more than three years; the crimes have been committed by a group of people not all of whom had been identified. The judge considered that if freed, the applicant would abscond because she had a passport for foreign travel; she could put pressure on witnesses and other people involved in the investigation or otherwise impede the establishment of truth in the case and continue her criminal activities. The judge dismissed any alternative measures of restraint as they “would not contribute to the interests of the investigation, trial, and public interests, as well as constitutional rights of victims”.

The applicant appealed against the District Court detention order of 23 September 2015 on 25 September 2015. On 19 October 2015 the Moscow City Court ( hereinafter, “the City Court”) rejected the appeal complaint endorsing the reasoning of the District Court.

On 22 October 2015 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for a month referring essentially to the same grounds as in its decision of 23 September 2015. On 25 October 2015 the applicant appealed against the detention extension order of 22 October 2015. The applicant also argued that, even if Lt K. had taken the decision to place her on the wanted person ’ s list, the corresponding procedure had not been initiated and no actions to search for her had been taken.

On 29 October 2015 police replied to the applicant ’ s lawyer that on the date of 17 September 2015 the applicant had not been searched for and that no wanted persons ’ procedure had been initiated in her respect.

On 18 November 2015 the City Court upheld the detention extension order of 22 October 2015. As for the information confirming that the applicant had not been searched for, the City Court held that it did not affect the choice of the measure of restraint because alternative measures could not ensure the applicant ’ s compliance with summons from the investigator and the court; that she could abscond and otherwise interfere with the investigation.

On 24 November 2015 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for another month relying on the similar reasoning. On 27 November 2015 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 23 December 2015 the City Court rejected the appeal complaint finding no reasons to change the chosen measure of restraint.

On 25 December 2015 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for two more months on the same grounds. On 27 December 2015 the applicant appealed against that decision.

On 21 March 2016 the Cheryemushkinskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced her to a four years ’ imprisonment.

On 4 May 2016 the City Court upheld on appeal the detention extension order of 25 December 2015.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about her unlawful arrest and subsequent detention. She complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about insufficient reasons for her placement into custody and for her continued detention. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the national courts did not speedily examine her appeal complaints against her detention and detention extension orders.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was her detention from 5.40 p.m. to 10.40 p.m. on 21 September 2015 properly recorded, as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and the national law (see Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia , no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014)?

2. Was the applicant ’ s detention from 5.40 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 23 September 2015 “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 her initial arrest, as required by national law?

3. Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention on remand in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts ’ decisions extending the applicant ’ s detention founded on “relevant and sufficient” reasons (see Zherebin v. Russia , no. 51445/09, §§ 58-62, 24 March 2016 )?

4. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her 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 )?