Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (First Section Committee), April 30, 2015 (case CASE OF MISYUKEVICH v. RUSSIA)

Judge:CHURKINA L.M.
Defense:RUSSIA
Resolution Date:April 30, 2015
Issuing Organization:Court (First Section Committee)

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MISYUKEVICH v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 63053/09)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 April 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Misyukevich v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

             Khanlar Hajiyev, President,              Julia Laffranque,              Dmitry Dedov, judges,and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 Avril 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 63053/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Stanislav Yevgenyevich Misyukevich (“the applicant”), on 26 October 2009.

  2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms L.M. Churkina, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

  3. On 14 December 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.

    THE FACTS

    1. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  4. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil.

    1. Criminal proceedings

  5. On 19 August 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant of massive fraud, an offence punishable with up to ten years’ imprisonment, and sentenced him to five and a half years’ in prison.

  6. During the trial the applicant was represented by his counsel.

  7. On 3 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal.

  8. On 23 October 2009 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It follows from the appeal judgment that the applicant could follow the appeal hearing by video link from the Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1. Counsel and prosecutor did not attend the hearing.

    1. Conditions of detention

  9. On 19 August 2009 the applicant was placed in Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1 and was held there until 27 October 2009. According to the applicant, conditions of detention there were inhuman and degrading because of overcrowding.

    1. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

  10. For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice, see the Court’s judgment Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, §§ 17-20, 26 June 2008.

    THE LAW

    1. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

  11. The applicant complained that the conditions of his pre-trial detention violated Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

    “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

  12. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration on 26 September 2014. In particular, they acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the remand centre had not complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, and expressed their readiness to pay the applicant 3,765 euros (EUR) as just compensation. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The remainder of the declaration read as follows:

    “The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking of the case out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

    The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three...

To continue reading

Request your trial