ECHR Ordinance of March 27, 2018 in the case of Alexander Aleksandrov (Aleksandr Aleksandrov) v. the Russian Federation (application No. 14431/06).
In 2006, the complainant was assisted in preparing a application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant to the refusal to apply the punishment, not related to deprivation of liberty, in connection with the residence of the applicant. The case has violated the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, considered in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In 2005, a Moscow district court recognized the applicant, who was intoxicated, guilty of beatings to a police officer, and sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment. In deciding whether to impose a sentence, the court listed a number of extenuating circumstances that gave the applicant, prima facie, the right to impose a non-custodial sentence, such as a suspended sentence or a fine. However, the court ruled that the applicant lost the right to a lighter sentence due to two facts: the first was “the special circumstances of the crime”, the second was the applicant’s lack of a permanent residence in the Moscow Region: the applicant did not live in this area, but committed a crime and here he was sentenced. The applicant's complaint was rejected.
Prima facie (Latin) - obvious, obvious, at first glance.
QUESTIONS OF RIGHT
To the extent that the applicant’s place of residence was explicitly stated in the sentence as one of the factors determining the content of the sentence, this circumstance meant a different treatment of the applicant and other offenders who committed the same crime based on the applicant’s place of residence. penalties conditionally or in the form of a fine. Apparently, the difference in treatment was not justified by law. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allowed a conditional person to change his place of residence under certain conditions.
When deciding whether a non-custodial sentence would meet the requirements of criminal proceedings, the courts of the Russian Federation could be called upon to determine the impact of the method of execution of the punishment on the offender’s privacy. However, the reference to any basis protected by Article 14 of the Convention required a justification that could be considered objective and reasonable.
Recognizing the existence of close social ties in the applicant's hometown, the district court did not substantiate why the appointment of a non-custodial sentence depended on the applicant’s ability to live outside his place of residence or near the place where he was tried and where his case was decided the sentence. The court of second instance did not consider the issue of discrimination raised by the applicant’s lawyer and did not explain the difference in treatment.
Therefore, it has not been proven that the difference in treatment had a legitimate aim or an objective and reasonable justification.
In the case of violation of the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention, considered in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.