Communicated on 1 December 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 47598/08 Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV against Russia lodged on 1 9 January 200 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ilyas Yakubovich Timishev , is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nalchik. The applicant is an advocate practising in Nalchik, the Ingushetiya Republic.

On 10 October 2006 the applicant was travelling by bus from Nalchik in Ingushetiya to Grozny in Chechnya. At about 1 p.m. a police officer stopped the bus at the Ingush-Chechen administrative border to check the passengers ’ identity documents. He discovered that the applicant ’ s signature in his passport was made in red ink and proceeded to charge him with the administrative offence under Article 19.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences for the use of an invalid identity document. The applicant who is an advocate raised his objections, stating that a wrong kind of ink did not render his passport invalid. He was taken by the police car to the Goragorsk police station.

Senior inspector L. at the police station drew up a report on the administrative offence and told the applicant that he was “temporarily detained for the purpose of drawing up the report”.

At 3.15 p.m. the report was ready and the applicant was released. He went immediately to the Nadterechniy police station to file a complaint about the unlawful actions of the police officers.

The applicant unsuccessfully sought to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on the ground that his detention had been neither necessary nor lawful. On 24 December 2008 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the prosecutor ’ s refusal to open a criminal case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 about his allegedly arbitrary detention on 10 October 2006.

Questions to the parties

Was the deprivation of liberty to which the applicant was subjected on 10 October 2006 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention? Was it “prescribed by law”, taking into account that the administrative detention could only be used in “exceptional circumstances”? Was it properly formalised?