ECHR judgment of July 10, 2018 in the case of Vasilevsky and Bogdanov (Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov) v. Russia (applications No. 52241/14 and 74222/14).
In 2014, complainants were assisted in preparing applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
The case was successfully considered applications about the lack of adequate compensation to persons who were mistakenly detained by the authorities of the respondent state. The case was a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants claimed that the amount awarded by the courts of the Russian Federation for their erroneous detention was so insignificant that it violated the essence of their rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
Regarding compliance with paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention. The courts of the Russian Federation established that the applicant Vasilevsky had been deprived of his liberty for one and a half years as a result of a serious and obvious mistake and that the applicant’s illegal conviction of Bogdanov was the result of a direct denial of justice, which meant the illegality of the applicant’s long detention. Therefore, Article 5 § 5 of the Convention applies to the present case.
The courts in good faith and within their means tried to assess the level of suffering, stress, anxiety or other negative experiences caused to the applicants by their unlawful detention. Such an assessment should be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation and take into account the standards of living in the respective country, even if this leads to the appointment of sums that are less than the sums awarded by the Court in similar cases. Applicant Vasilevsky was awarded € 3,320 for 472 days of unlawful detention, and to applicant Bogdanov - € 324 for 119 days of illegal detention, which respectively meant seven and 2.7 euros for one day of illegal detention. The amounts of compensation were not only significantly lower than those awarded by the European Court in similar cases, but also disproportionate to the length of the applicants' detention and, in absolute terms, to be insignificant. The amounts awarded to the applicants were so insignificant that they violated the essence of their right to compensation.
RESOLUTION
In the case of a violation of the requirements of paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
COMPENSATION
In application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In addition, the most appropriate form of compensation will in principle be the resumption of proceedings for damages, if such an application is submitted, and a new consideration of the applicants' claims in accordance with the requirements of this provision and the case-law of the European Court. This is legally possible at the domestic level.