JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES JÄDERBLOM, KELLER AND SERGHIDES

1 . We agree with our colleagues on the admissibility issue and all the different violations and non-violations of the Convention rights in this case.

2 . However, we did not vote with the majority on point 11 of the operative part (just satisfaction). In our view, the Court made an award for non-pecuniary damage that is too low in comparison with other cases. In Denisenko v. Russia , for example, the applicant complained that his detention from 15 to 20 July 2004 was in breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (no. 18322/05, § 9, 14 February 2017). The Government denied the allegation and claimed that the applicant, although arrested at 2 p.m. on 15 July, was released at 9 p.m. that same evening (ibid., § 11). The police failed to draw up a record of the applicant ’ s arrest, without which it was impossible to tell whether or not the applicant had been detained until the time he claimed or released on the day he was arrested. Nevertheless, the Court noted that, although it remained unclear whether the applicant was indeed detained during the days he claimed, he had at the very least, based on the Government ’ s version, been “deprived of his liberty from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m. for seven hours in total” (ibid., § 14). Accordingly, the Court “found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage” (ibid., §§ 16 and 21).

3 . In two other cases the Court has awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to applicants whose arrests were not properly formalised. In both Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia (no. 47837/06, 18 September 2014) and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia (nos. 35919/05 and 3346/06, 14 June 2016), the Court ’ s reason for making an award was the lack of a formal record of the arrest. These cases illustrate that, even where the Court has upheld a claim of non-pecuniary damage based on procedural shortcomings of otherwise seemingly lawful arrests, the awards have been larger than in the present case, where the Court has found a substantive violation of Article 5 § 1.

4 . In our view, and given the nature and scope of the violation or violations found in respect of each applicant, the Court should have awarded the following sums for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable:

– EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) to Ms Tsvekova;

– EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Bgantsev;

– EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to Mr Torlopov on the basis of ne ultra petitum ;

– EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Andreyev.

We agree with the amounts awarded to Mr Dragomirov and Mr Svetlov.

APPENDIX

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

54381/08

20/10/2008

Svetlana Ivanovna TSVETKOVA

12/12/1972

Irkutsk

10939/11

28/01/2011

Aleksandr Vitalyevich BGANTSEV

15/03/1958

Volgograd

Yuliya Aleksandrovna LEPILINA

13673/13

01/02/2013

Pavel Vladimirovich ANDREYEV

12/03/1989

Syktyvkar

Irina Anatolyevna BIRYUKOVA

69739/14

05/09/2014

Aleksey Olegovich DRAGOMIROV

12/03/1980

Roslavl

70724/14

24/10/2014

Viktor Grigoryevich TORLOPOV

13/12/1963

Syktyvkar

Irina Anatolyevna BIRYUKOVA

52440/15

30/09/2015

Kirill Valentinovich SVETLOV

21/09/1990

Cherepovets