Temporary detention without a judicial decision violated Article 5 of the ECHR. No State liability for violating the presumption of innocence of an accused coming from a newspaper
JUDGMENT
Mityanin and Leonov v. Russia 07.05.2019 (no. 11436/06 and 22912/06)
SUMMARY
Arrest of the applicants for armed robbery as members of a criminal organization and temporary detention without a judicial decision. Article in a newspaper with a photograph of the accused in wich he was described as guilty. The European Court of Human Rights held that there was a violation of Article 5 § 1 (legality of detention) because he was detained without a judicial decision, of Article 5 § 3 (proceedings within a reasonable time), violation of Article 5 § 5 (Enforceable Right of Compensation) of the ECHR regarding the two applicants, since their claims for unlawful detention were not examines and violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to detention) because of the refusal of the courts to examine an appeal against an applicant’s refusal to release. Infringement of Article 6 § 1 (fair trial) due to the absence of one of the applicants in the court hearings.
No violation of Article 6 (2) (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to privacy and family life) in relation to the photograph and the article of the newspaper because, on the basis of the material available, the State was not held responsible for the disputed publication .
PROVISIONS
Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4, 5
Article 6 §§1 and 2
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Aleksandr Mityanin and Mikhail Leonov, are two Russian nationals who were born in
1971 and 1976 respectively. They are currently in prison in Kharp (Russia).
Mr Mityanin was arrested in July 2003 and subsequently placed in detention, with one order being
applied by the Syktyvkar Town Court until 19 February 2004. On 18 February 2004 the prosecuting
authorities completed their pre-trial investigation and sent the case for trial. On 10 March 2004 the
Syktyvkar Town Court extended the detention order.
He was convicted in December 2006 of armed robbery as part of a group. He brought a civil claim
that there had been no valid court decision on his detention from 20 February until 10 March 2004,
but his action was dismissed in 2012.
In January 2008 the authorities opened criminal proceedings against both applicants and others over
the creation and functioning of a “criminal community”. A newspaper article that month mentioned
Mr Mityanin as a suspect and published a photograph of him and others had been arrested. He
brought defamation proceedings against the newspaper, but his claim was dismissed. In June 2014
he was convicted of various offences and sentenced to life imprisonment
Mr Leonov was arrested and placed in detention on suspicion of armed robbery in December 2003.
On 29 January 2004 his detention was extended until 19 February 2004. The prosecutor completed the investigation and sent the case for trial. On 21 April 2004 the judge returned the case to the prosecutor, and held that the preventive measure of detention should remain unchanged.
He was convicted of a number of offences in December 2006. In 2012 he lodged complaints about
the lawfulness of his detention from 19 February to 29 April 2004 but the courts dismissed them.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 5
The Court found violations of both men’s Article 5 § 1 rights owing to periods of detention that had
not been authorised by a court order. For Mr Mityanin that period had run from 20 February to 10
March 2004 while for Mr Leonov it had been from 20 February to 21 April 2004.
It found a breach of Article 5 § 3, noting that the Government had acknowledged a violation of that
provision, itself finding omissions in the proceedings. It also upheld the first applicant’s complaint
under Article 5 § 4 owing to the courts’ refusal to examine an appeal against a February 2006
rejection of his request for release. Lastly, it held that the 2012 court decisions to reject their claims
of unlawful detention had led to a violation of their Article 5 § 5 compensation rights.
Article 6 § 1
Mr Leonov complained about being absent from the hearings in September and December 2012
which had determined his two civil cases for wrongful detention. The Government acknowledged a
violation over the December 2012 hearings. Given that acknowledgment and its case-law, the Court
found a violation of his rights in relation to both sets of proceedings, taken as a whole.
Article 6 § 2
Mr Mityanin argued that the newspaper article and photograph which had covered the bringing of
charges against various men for being in a “criminal community” had been based on information
from a public official and had amounted to a statement of his being guilty. The courts in turn had
failed to protect his right to be presumed innocent.
The Court found that although the article had been based on information provided by the regional
department of the Federal Security Service, it was not possible to say that the text which had stated
that the accused, including the applicant, were part of a “gang” had come from that official source.
The article might have given the impression that the applicant was guilty, but it was not possible
from the available material to confirm that the State should be held responsible for that under
Article 6 § 2. This part of the complaint was thus inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
Article 8
The Court limited its examination of Mr Mityanin’s complaint about a violation of his right to privacy
to how the courts had dealt with his defamation claim, focussing on whether they had struck a
proper balance.
It accepted the courts’ stance that the publication of the photograph, without obtaining the required
consent, had been justified on public interest grounds as a way to gather further information about
the alleged crimes and to prompt eyewitnesses to come forward.
The Court noted that the applicant’s main complaint about the article was that it had stated that he
was a member of a criminal gang and it accepted that such wording could have caused him concern
as he had been accused of a related crime.
However, the article had made clear that the people who had been arrested had been “accused” of
running a criminal community and that they were suspects. As a whole it was possible to read the
article as saying that the applicant was merely suspected of an offence related to membership of a
criminal gang. The Court also agreed with the domestic courts’ assessment that the journalist had
relied in good faith on an official source for parts of the article.
The Court found that the respondent State had not failed in its duty under Article 8 as regards the
publication of the photograph or article. The applicant had not provided other arguments on the
balancing of his rights and the newspaper’s, or on a failure by the courts to properly apply Article 8
and Article 10 (freedom of expression). It thus found that there had been no violation of Article 8.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held by a majority that Russia was to pay each applicant 12,700 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 each in respect of costs and expenses.
Separate opinions
Judges de Gaetano and Dedov expressed partly dissenting opinions which are annexed to the
judgment(echrcaselaw.com editing).
