Decision of Court (First Section Committee), April 21, 2015 (case KHKHUCHUYEVA v. RUSSIA)

Judge:SAGUMYANTS S.
Resolution Date:April 21, 2015
Issuing Organization:Court (First Section Committee)

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3232/09Anzhella Nazhmuttinovna KHKHUCHUYEVAagainst Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 April 2015 as a Committee composed of:

             Khanlar Hajiyev, President,              Erik Møse,              Dmitry Dedov, judges,

and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2008,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to the declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

  1. The applicant, Ms Anzhella Nazhmuttinovna Khkhuchuyeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Ruza. She was represented before the Court by Mr S. Sagumyants, a lawyer practising in Volgograd.

  2. The Russian Government were represented before the Court by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

  3. At 7 p.m. on 11 August 2004 the police arrested the applicant and her parents for disorderly acts. They had stayed in the custody suite of the Dzerzhinskiy district police station in Volgograd until their release at 9 a.m. on the following day.

  4. By decision of 6 May 2005, the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd established that the applicant had not committed any administrative offence and that her arrest had not been in accordance with the law.

  5. The applicant sued the treasury for compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage that she had incurred on account of her unlawful detention, and for legal costs and expenses.

  6. On 15 February 2008 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow rejected her claim, finding that the applicant had not adduced any evidence of non‑pecuniary damage.

  7. On 29 May 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, noting that the relevant provision of the Civil Code did not provide for compensation in case of an administrative arrest.

    COMPLAINT

  8. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that she had been denied compensation for the unlawful administrative detention.

    THE LAW

  9. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, on 12 December 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They acknowledged that there was a violation of Article 5 § 5 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial