Communicated on 26 May 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 49250/07 Vladimir Nikolayevich CHUMAK against Russia lodged on 12 September 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Chumak , is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and is currently in detention in Sosnovka , in the Belgorod Region.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

At 2.20 p.m. on 1 March 2007 the applicant was arrested. At 12.45 a.m. on 2 March 2007 he was formally arrested as a suspect in theft proceedings. He noted in his arrest record that he had been detained since 2.20 p.m. on 1 March 2007.

At 10.30 p.m. on 3 March 2007 an investigator ordered the applicant ’ s release, after he had given an undertaking not to abscond. The investigator relied on the fact that the applicant had: a permanent place of residence; a responsibility to provide for his child, who was a minor, and his pregnant wife; and a third-degree disability due to tuberculosis and hepatitis, which required constant outpatient treatment. As soon as the applicant left the remand prison where he had been detained, two people approached him and asked him to go with them to talk. The applicant refused to follow them and his wife called police. A special purpose police unit arrived, put the applicant into a car and took him to a police station. At 11.30 p.m. a new arrest record was drawn up. He was suspected of having been involved in another theft. The record indicated that this suspicion and his lack of a permanent place of residence were grounds for arrest.

On 5 March 2007 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant ’ s detention. It referred to his criminal record and the charges against him. On 15 March 2007 the Belgorod Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the detention order on appeal.

On 12 March 2007 the applicant made a complaint to the prosecuting authorities regarding, among other things, his unrecorded and unlawful detention from 1 to 4 March 2007.

On 31 August 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment starting on 1 March 2007. On 24 October 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

On 5 June 2009 the prosecuting authorities refused to open a criminal case in respect of the applicant ’ s complaint of 12 March 2007. On 3 September 2010 the applicant challenged that refusal before a court. On 15 September 2010 the District Court rejected his complaint as unsubstantiated. On 3 November 2010 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. Neither the prosecuting authorities nor the courts addressed the applicant ’ s unrecorded detention for nine hours.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that he was detained from 2.20 p.m. on 1 March 2007 to 12.45 a.m. on 2 March 2007 without any record of that detention being made. He further complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention from 2 to 5 March 2007 was unlawful.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his detention from 2.20 p.m. on 1 March 2007 to 12.45 a.m. on 2 March 2007 recorded, as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to provide copies of the register of people who were escorted to police stations ( к нига / журнал учета лиц , доставленных в отдел внутренних дел ) and the register of people who were detained ( р еестр лиц , подвергнутых задержанию ) during the relevant period.

2. Was the applicant ’ s detention from 2 to 5 March 2007 “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?