Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

GOROKHOVETSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

Doc ref: 37645/09;5465/10 • ECHR ID: 001-155124

Document date: May 13, 2015

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 5

GOROKHOVETSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

Doc ref: 37645/09;5465/10 • ECHR ID: 001-155124

Document date: May 13, 2015

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 13 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 37645/09 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich GOROKHOVETSKIY and others against Russia and 5465/10 Sergey Anatolyevich BOYARKO against Russia lodged on 26 June 2009 and 12 January 2010 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

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

On 6 February 2009 the applicants, all Ukrainian nationals, were detained on board of their fishing boat by Russian authorities while fishing in the Sea of Azov. The boat was then moored at a military base, and on 9 February 2009 the applicants were remanded in custody on suspicion of poaching.

On 6 March 2009 the applicants were released from custody after giving a written undertaking not to leave their place of residence for an unspecified period of time. The applicants were then placed on the boat under the supervision of military authorities and stayed there till 19 June 2009.

According to the applicants, the boat was unfit for a prolonged stay of the crew. In particular, it had three sleeping rooms: two measuring 5.5 sq. m and one measuring 3.75 sq. m. The boat was 23.05 m long and 6.8 wide. In the summer time the temperature inside was 40 degrees whereas the military base administration did not allow air conditioning to be installed.

On 20 April 2009 the Temryuk District Court, at a preliminary hearing, extended the preventive measure without giving any reasons or setting a time-limit. The order was challenged on appeal by the applicants, but there is no indication that the appeal was examined.

On 28 April 2009 the District Court ordered that the criminal proceedings be discontinued but extended the preventive measure until “the order becomes final” and did not provide any reasons. On 20 May 2009 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the order and remitted the case to the District Court while extending the preventive measure without giving any reasons or setting a time-limit.

On 11 June 2009 the District Court again extended the preventive measure referring to the impending trial and stating that the applicants thus had “no immediate necessity to leave the Russian Federation”. The court did not set a time-limit for the preventive measure.

On 18 June 2009 the District Court convicted the applicants as charged, sentenced them to a fine and released.

On 29 July 2009 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld in the same session the judgment on the merits against the applicants and the extension order of 11 June 2009. It noted that the applicants were Ukrainian citizens, had no permanent residence in Russia, could abscond or pervert the course of justice.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about degrading conditions of the detention between 6 March and 19 June 2009.

The applicants also complain under Article 5 § 1 that the courts failed to give grounds to justify the detention or to set a time-limit.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as regards the conditions of their stay on board between 6 March and 19 June 2009, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicants suffer a “deprivation of liberty” during their stay on the boat between 6 March and 19 June 2009, within the meaning of Article 5 (see Guzzardi v. Italy, §§ 90-95, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39)?

3. Having regard to the judicial decision which did not indicate grounds for applying the preventive measures or set a time-limit for its application, was the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 respected (see Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, §§ 40-49, 27 June 2013; Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, §§ 48-51 and 54-57, 20 September 2011, and Stašaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 67, 21 March 2002)?

APPENDIX

List of applications

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

37645/09

26/06/2009

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich GOROKHOVETSKIY

08/04/1962

Berdyansk , Ukraine;

Andrey Vladimirovich SIRYACHENKO

03/07/1967

Berdyansk , Ukraine;

Dmitriy Vasilyevich

ILYUSHENKO

30/04/1975

Berdyansk , Ukraine;

Ivan Fedorovich

GOREVOY

16/10/1980

Novoazovsk, Ukraine

Aleksandr Borisovich VOROBYEV

Aleksey Aleksandrovich VOROBYEV

5465/10

12/01/2010

Sergey Anatolyevich BOYARKO

02/08/1973

Osipenko , Ukraine

Aleksandr Borisovich VOROBYEV

Aleksey Aleksandrovich VOROBYEV

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846