Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189

October 2015

Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine - 43611/02

Judgment 15.10.2015 [Section I]

Article 1

Jurisdiction of states

Jurisdiction of Ukraine in relation to search of applicant’s apartment, his arrest and forcible transfer to Russia conducted with participation of Russian police officers

Article 5

Article 5-1

Liberty of person

Applicant’s unacknowledged detention a nd forcible transfer from Ukraine to Russia in breach of extradition procedure: violation by Ukraine

Facts – On 3 November 2000 two Russian police officers arrived in Ukraine with a warrant issued by a Russian prosecutor to carry out a search at the applic ant’s home. The head of the Ukrainian local criminal investigation department instructed his subordinates to assist the Russian police. On the same day, a Ukrainian and two Russian police officers arrested the applicant. He was handcuffed and his apartment was searched. According to the applicant, he then remained in the custody of the Ukrainian and Russian police, who on the next day escorted him to a local airport, where the Russian officers took the next flight to Moscow together with him. On arrival, he was formally arrested and detained on suspicion of murder. His pre-trial detention was extended several times. In 2003 he was convicted of conspiracy to murder. The applicant’s parents’ lodged complaints with various Ukrainian authorities, alleging, in pa rticular, abuse of power and the unlawfulness of the search, arrest and detention. Even though administrative proceedings were brought against the officials concerned, and the Ukrainian police officer who had been involved in arresting the applicant was re primanded, no criminal proceedings were opened.

Law

Article 1 ( jurisdiction ): The applicant’s complaints about the search of his apartment and his arrest and forced transfer to Russia had been directed against both the Ukrainian and Russian Governments. Until the applicant boarded the plane to Russia on 4 November 2000, he fell w ithin the jurisdiction of Ukraine. The Ukrainian officials had been aware of the informal character of the Russian request for assistance and of its unlawfulness under Ukrainian law and the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Famil y and Criminal Matters (“the 1993 Minsk Convention “). Moreover, despite the presence of the Russian officials and their alleged participation in the events of 3 and 4 November 2000, the Ukrainian authorit ies had been in control throughout all the episodes, including the applicant’s arrest, the search of his home, his overnight detention in the police station and subsequent transfer to the airport and through the airport security checks.

Thus the events of 3 and 4 November 2000 fell within the jurisdiction of Ukraine.

Conclusion : within the jurisdiction of Ukraine (unanimously).

Article 5 § 1: After the applicant’s interview of 3 November 2000 he had remained in police custody and the next day had been forcibly transferred to Moscow, in breach of the specific procedure in extradition cases set out in the Minsk Convention, which ha d been disregarded by both the Russian and Ukrainian authorities. The Ukrainian officials had been aware that the request for extradition was informal. No explanation had been given by the Ukrainian Government regarding the applicant’s detention between 3 and 4 November 2000 and his subsequent transfer to Moscow. During that period the applicant had therefore been held in unacknowledged detention and transferred to Russia in complete disregard of the safeguards enshrined in Article 5.

Conclusion : violation by Ukraine (unanimously).

The Court also found unanimously a violation of Article 8 by Ukraine on account of the unlawful search of the applicant’s apartment.

The Court found unanimously violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 by the Russian Federation on accou nt of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, his inability to attend hearings concerning the extension of his detention, serious delays in the examination of certain appeals and a failure to examine other appeals.

Article 41: EUR 12,5 00 to be paid by Ukraine and EUR 5,000 to be paid by Russia in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes