CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s31D32209 { width:164.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s863EC76E { width:219.61pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION               CASE OF MITYANIN AND LEONOV v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 11436/06 and 22912/06)             JUDGMENT           STRASBOURG   7 May 2019     FINAL   07/08/2019   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mityanin and Leonov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   María Elósegui, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos.   11436/06 and 22912/06) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Mityanin (“the first applicant”) and Mr Mikhail Nikolayevich Leonov (“the second applicant”) (“the applicants”), on 1   February and 10 May   2006 respectively. Further complaints were raised subsequently, between 2006 and 2013. 2.     The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr Aleksey Nikolayevich Laptev, a lawyer admitted to practice in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     On 14 October 2015 the complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants were born in 1971 and 1976 respectively and are detained in Kharp. 5.     The applicants were co-defendants in domestic criminal proceedings. A.     Mr Mityanin 1.     Detention and criminal proceedings in 2003-06 6.     In July 2003 the applicant was arrested in the town of Syktyvkar on suspicion of committing a criminal offence. He was ordered not to leave his town of residence. He was subsequently detained on an unspecified date. His detention was later extended. On 29   January 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court extended his detention until 19   February 2004. On 18 February 2004 the prosecuting authorities completed their pre-trial investigation and submitted the case for trial. On 10 March 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court extended the applicant’s detention. On 21 April 2004 the trial judge returned the criminal case to the prosecutor and dismissed the defence’s application for release, thereby maintaining detention on remand. 7.     The applicant was also accused of committing a criminal offence in the town of Ivanovo. In April 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court ordered his detention in relation to this criminal offence too. 8.     Subsequently, the related proceedings were pursued before the courts in the town of Ivanovo. 9.     On 3 August 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo extended the applicant’s detention “pending investigation” (under Article   109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – hereinafter “the CCrP”) until 5 October 2004. 10.     On 13 September 2004 the District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing in the criminal case and also held that the applicant should remain in detention, pending trial (Article 228 of the CCrP). 11.     In December 2004 a local newspaper published an article recounting the relevant events and also indicating that the accused should be presumed innocent until proved guilty. 12.     In the meantime, it appears that the district judge returned the case to the prosecutor, which entailed, apparently, modifying the legal basis for the applicant’s detention pending trial (Article 255 of the CCrP) or pending investigation (Article 109 of the CCrP); this in turn necessitated the re ‑ calculation of the respective periods of detention. 13.     In particular, on 20 December 2004 the judge decided to return the criminal case to the prosecutor (Article 237 of the CCrP) and held that the applicant should remain in detention. The applicant appealed. On 14   February 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment. 14.     On 18 February 2005 the prosecutor received the case file. 15.     On 9 March 2005 the prosecutor lodged an application for a fresh detention order to be issued (apparently under Article 109 of the CCrP, since the case was again “pending investigation”). 16 .     On 14 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 June 2005. On 24 March 2005 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. These court decisions were examined on 3 March 2006 by the Presidium of the Regional Court on supervisory review. The Presidium upheld them, also stating that the applicant’s detention between October 2004 and March 2005 had been lawful. 17 .     In the meantime, the applicant lodged an application for release. On 1   February 2006 the District Court dismissed it. The applicant appealed. On 23 March 2006 the Regional Court stated that this decision was not appealable. 18.     In the meantime, on 20 February 2006, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 May 2006. On 23 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld this extension. 19.     It appears that, in the meantime, in February 2006 the court again returned the case to the prosecutor. Apparently, the case was resubmitted to the court in or around August 2006. 20.     On 21   December 2006 the applicant was convicted of an armed robbery undertaken by a group of people. On 14 June 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. 21 .     Mr Mityanin brought a civil claim under Article 1070 § 1 and Article   1100 of the Civil Code for compensation because there had been no valid court decision authorising his detention from 20   February until 10   March 2004 (see above). By a judgment of 4 October 2012 the Town Court ruled that (i) during the relevant period the case against the applicant had been pending before the trial court and that his continued detention had thus been lawful; and (ii) in the absence of any element of illegality there was no legal basis for awarding compensation. It stated as follows: “The detention matter had been determined by a court and in compliance with the rules that had been applicable at the time. The staff of the detention centre had no legal reasons for releasing [the applicant] after 19 February 2004, including in view of the absence of any information from the prosecutor that the case had been submitted for trial to the Town Court. Consequently, [the applicant’s] detention from 19   February to 27 April 2004 was lawful. In addition, this court takes into account the decision of 21 April 2004 in the part concerning the dismissal of the application for release and the decision to maintain detention on remand. Hence, as regards the object of this case, there has been no violation of the rights or freedoms (including those under Article 5 of the Convention) ... Since the detention was lawful, there is no lawful basis for compensation on account of any non-pecuniary damage ...” 22 .     On 27 December 2012 the Komi Regional Court upheld the judgment. “Under Article 227 §§ 1 and 3 of the CCrP receiving a criminal case a judge must forward it if another court is competent, to list a preliminary hearing or list a hearing. Where a case concerns a defendant who is detained on remand, a judge must decide within fourteen days. Pursuant to Article 228 § 3 of the CCrP a judge must also determine whether the preventive measure should be amended or cancelled ... It follows from those rules that as soon as a criminal case is submitted for trial the detention matter is decided under Article 227 of the CCrP. The authorised period of detention had not yet expired when the case was submitted for trial. The detention matter was then determined by the judge within the applicable time-limits. Thus, there is no legal basis for awarding compensation. Pursuant to Article 61 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court is bound in respect of the circumstances that were ascertained by a final and enforceable court decision in another case. Those circumstances cannot be contested during the examination of another case between the same parties ... Thus, it was correctly taken into account that the Regional Court of the Komi Republic had stated in its decision of 25   May 2012 (in reply to an application for release) that the detention from 19 February to 27   April 2004 had been lawful.” 2.     Another set of criminal proceedings and publication of a newspaper article in 2008 23.     On 12 January 2008 the authorities in Syktyvkar opened criminal proceedings against the applicants and others under Article 210 of the Criminal Code in respect of the creation and functioning of a “criminal community” ( преступное сообщество ). 24.     On an unspecified date Mr Mityanin was formally charged with this criminal offence. 25.     On 18 January 2008 a local newspaper published an article entitled “Boxers in detention”, stating that it was the first time that a criminal case under this provision of the Criminal Code had been initiated in the region and that it concerned well-known sportsmen. 26.     The article read as follows: “This is the first time that the law-enforcement authorities of the region have filed charges against a group of former sportsmen, [having accused] them of running a criminal community. ... Officially, they are all businessmen, sports benefactors or organisers of various sports events. Unofficially, the law-enforcement authorities believe, they are members of the so-called Loginovskaya Gang, which was created in the second half of the 1990s ... According to information [issued by] the press office of the FSB [the Federal Security Service], the gang members devised an efficient mechanism of securing regular income by way of extortion from businessmen. Those who did not cooperate were subjected to various forms of pressure, such as arson in respect of businesses or vehicles, or violence ... The law-enforcement authorities have been working on the gang for several years. On 12 January 2008 the investigating unit of the regional department of the FSB initiated criminal proceedings against the gang leaders and active members. They are accused of committing an offence under Article 210 of the Criminal Code (“Running a criminal community”). Lawyers say that this Article of the Criminal Code is rarely used because it is exceedingly difficult to prove the running of a criminal community. In our region this is the first time it is being used ... According to information [issued by] the press office of the regional department of the FSB, two more persons – [the first applicant’s first name and last name] and [the second applicant’s first name and last name] – are already serving prison terms for other offences. In December 2006 the Ivanovo [District Court] convicted them of robbery. [The first applicant’s last name] was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment ... The arrest of the suspects received wide coverage in the Ezhvinskiy district of Syktyvkar ...” 27.     The article was accompanied by photographs of the arrested people, including the applicant. 28 .     Mr Mityanin brought court proceedings under Articles 152 and 152.1 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 43-45 below) against the newspaper. According to the applicant, it was stated in the article that he had been an active member of the so-called “Loginovskaya Gang”, which had lived off income from the extortion and “protection” of businesses, with recourse to violence against, and the destruction of the property of, business people who refused to cooperate. The applicant sought, inter alia , a refutation ( опровержение ) of the allegation that he was an active member of the criminal community, considering this statement to be defamatory. According to the applicant, the author of the article (who referred to official sources) implied that the applicant had been a member of a notorious “gang”, and that he was therefore guilty of committing an offence under Article 210 of the Criminal Code. 29 .     By a judgment of 17 October 2011, the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic dismissed Mr Mityanin’s claims. The court considered that the applicant had not proved that the information in the article had been untrue, and that that information had corresponded to the fact that there was an ongoing criminal investigation in respect of, inter alia , the applicant. A successful defamation claim would require that the following conditions be met cumulatively: (i) the information in question had been disseminated to at least one other person; (ii) the content of   such information had tarnished the dignity, honour or business reputation of the person concerned; and (iii)   the information did “not correspond to reality” (that is to say it [was] untruthful). The court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish the falsity of the contested information. Lastly, noting that a newspaper was not required to verify information coming from an official source, the court ruled that the case disclosed an exception to the requirement that consent had to be given for the publishing of information relating to one’s private life and one’s photograph. In the court’s view, as required in order for a statutory exception to be made, the case disclosed “an interest relating to public and State security”, while the publication had been aimed at informing the public of the “appearance of a person in relation to a criminal investigation”. The judgment also reads as follows: “Having obtained the investigator’s approval, the press officer of the regional department of the Federal Security Service provided the respondent with information about the criminal investigation opened in respect of the claimant and [the] implication [of his involvement] in the criminal community ... The investigating authority was interested in receiving further information, in particular as regards possible eyewitnesses to the crimes. Thus, the respondent was given the above ‑ mentioned information and [the applicant’s] photograph.” 30 .     Mr Mityanin lodged an appeal against the Syktyvkar Town Court’s judgment. On 8 December 2011 the Komi Regional Court upheld the judgment, referring to the fact that the newspaper had acquired the contested information from an official source, had referred to this source in the article, and had merely recounted this information. The appeal court pointed out that the information had been true and non-defamatory, since it had “corresponded to the information [adduced by] the preliminary investigation”; it was important to apprise the public of the appearance of the person in relation to a case receiving media coverage. 31.     In the meantime, in a separate defamation case the applicant challenged another article (apparently with similar content) published by another newspaper in April 2011. By a default judgment ( заочное решение – that is to say without hearing either of the parties) of 7 September 2011, the Town Court considered that the respondent had failed to prove the veracity of the impugned statements; the court awarded Mr Mityanin 5,000   Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the newspaper to publish a refutation. It appears that this judgment was not appealed against, and thus became final. The applicant subsequently referred to the judgment of 7   September 2011 in the course of the criminal trial, alleging a violation of the presumption of innocence. The court refused to allow a copy of the judgment to be placed in the case file, considering, inter alia , that the findings of the civil court were irrelevant for the determination of the criminal charge. 32 .     It appears that on 23 June 2014 the applicant was convicted of several counts of multiple offences (including murder and membership of a criminal community) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant submits that in the statement of appeal he and his co-defendants raised certain arguments relating to the above-mentioned publication. On 10 July 2015 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment. B.     Mr Leonov 33 .     On 4 December 2003 the applicant was arrested in the town of Syktyvkar on suspicion of committing robbery and theft in Syktyvkar. On 5   December 2003 the Syktyvkar Town Court authorised his detention. On 29 January 2004 his detention was extended until 19 February 2004. On an unspecified date, the prosecutor completed the investigation and submitted 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. On 27   April 2004 an investigator ordered the applicant’s release in exchange for an undertaking from him not to leave his area of residence. However, the applicant was not released. 34 .     In separate proceedings, in March 2004 the applicant was charged in relation to an armed robbery in the town of Ivanovo. On 29 April 2004 the Ukhtinskiy Town Court of the Komi Republic authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation in relation to this robbery. The applicant did not appeal. 35.     The applicant was then transferred to the town of Ivanovo for further proceedings. 36.     On 24 June 2004 his detention was extended until 5   August 2004; on   3   August 2004 his detention was extended until 5   October 2004. On 7   September 2004 the case was submitted to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Ivanovo Region. On 13   September 2004 the District Court ordered that the applicant’s detention pending trial be continued.   Later on, the judge returned the case to the prosecutor. It was resubmitted to the judge on an unspecified date. On 20 December 2004 the District Court again returned the criminal case to the prosecutor and, inter alia , ordered him to redraft the bill of indictment. The District Court also ordered that the applicant be kept in detention pending the prosecutor’s further actions. On 14   February   2005 the Regional Court upheld the above-mentioned decisions.   The applicant’s detention was extended in 2005.   In August 2005 the criminal case was resubmitted for trial before the District Court.   It appears that in February 2006 the court again returned the case to the prosecutor. Apparently, the case was resubmitted to the court in or around August 2006. 37.     On 21   December 2006 the applicant was convicted of a number of criminal offences. He was then transferred to a prison in the Komi Republic. 38 .     In 2012 the applicant lodged complaints concerning the lawfulness of his detention from 19 February until 29 April 2004. The relevant prosecutor’s office refused to deal with this complaint. He challenged it under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP” – see paragraph 53 below) and asked to be taken to a court hearing from the detention facility. The Syktyvkar Town Court replied to the motion by indicating that the motion would be dealt with at a hearing on the merits. By a judgment of 24   September 2012 the Town Court heard the respondent and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court indicated in the judgment that it was appropriate to examine the case without the claimant being present because the applicable legislation made no provision for conveying a claimant to a court hearing. As to the merits of the complaint, the court indicated that the applicant’s complaint had been dealt with the appropriate official, in compliance with the applicable procedure and that the official had provided reasons for dismissing the complaint. The applicant appealed; on 3 December 2012 the Komi Regional Court upheld this judgment. 39 .     The applicant also brought proceedings (again under Chapter 25 of the CCP) against the head of the relevant remand centre, who had kept him there allegedly unlawfully during the contested period. On 24   September 2012 the same judge of the Town Court heard the respondent and rejected the applicant’s claims in that case too. Having listed the relevant provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, the CCrP and the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the procedural history of the criminal case (see paragraphs 33-34 above), the court concluded that the applicant’s detention during the impugned period had been in compliance with the legislation in force at the time in question; that the head of the remand centre had had no legal basis for releasing the applicant, having information that the criminal case had been pending before a trial court. On 3   December 2012 the Regional Court upheld the judgment, considering as follows: “The first-instance established the relevant circumstances and based its judgment on the provisions of the CCrP. It was right to conclude that there had been no legal basis for releasing the applicant after 19 February 2004, given that the head of the remand centre had had information that the criminal case had been submitted for trial. Thus, [the applicant’s] detention from 19 February to 29 April 2004 had been lawful ... The court was correct to dismiss the argument that, receiving no extension decision, the head of the remand centre should have released [the applicant] after 19   February 2004 ... Article 255 § 2 of the CCrP provides that the detention pending trial should not exceed six months, except for situations listed in paragraph 3 ... Thereafter, the relevant court can extend detention in cases relating to serious and particularly serious offences ... Thus, given that the criminal case was submitted for trial before the Syktyvkar Town Court and taking note of the decision of 21 April 2004 (in the part relating to the dismissal of the application for release), this decision should be de facto considered as a decision to extend [the applicant’s] detention within the time-limits mentioned in Article 255 of the CCrP ...” II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Protection of private life, reputation and honour 1.     Russian Constitution 40.     Article 23 of the Constitution protects the inviolability of one’s private life, honour and good name. 41.     Article 24 of the Russian Constitution prohibits the collection, storage, use or dissemination of information about a person’s private life without that person’s consent. 42.     Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the inviolability of one’s home. No one should be permitted to enter anyone’s home against the will of its residents, except in instances prescribed by a federal law or under a court order. 2.     Civil Code of the Russian Federation 43 .     Article 152 of the Code, as worded at the time in question, provided that a citizen had the right to seek a judicial order for the refutation of information which had tarnished his honour or reputation, if the person that disseminated this information failed to prove that it “corresponded to reality”. 44 .     Affirmations about facts or event which in fact did not take place at the time relevant to the contested information should be classified as “not corresponding to reality” (under paragraph 7 of Ruling no. 3 of 24   February 2004 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia). It is not admissible to classify as “not corresponding to reality” information which is contained in court decisions, decisions issued by an authority carrying out a preliminary investigation, or other official documents that can be challenged by means of another legal procedure (ibid.).   Under Article 152 of the Civil Code, the burden of proving that the contested information “corresponds to reality” lies with the respondent. The claimant must prove that the impugned information has been disseminated by the respondent and that the information has tarnished the claimant’s reputation (Ruling no.   3, paragraph   9). 45 .     Article 152.1 of the Civil Code was introduced in 2006 and prohibits the dissemination and use of a person’s image (by means of a photograph or video, for instance) without that person’s consent. Such consent is not required, inter alia , for the use of such an image in the State’s interest or the public interest. 3.     Mass Media Act of 27 December 1991 46.     Section 41 of the Media Act does not contain any general rule concerning the use of a person’s image in relation to criminal proceedings. However, it provides that the mass media is not allowed to divulge, either directly or indirectly, information leading to the divulging of a minor’s identity when that minor has committed or is suspected of having committed a criminal offence. The minor’s or his parents’ consent to such divulging is required. 47.     Section 49 of the Act provides that a journalist is legally required to seek the consent of an interested person for the dissemination of information relating to that person’s private life, except when “[dissemination] is necessary for the protection of the public interest”. 48 .     Under section 57 of the Act, as worded at the time, an editorial board or a journalist would not be held liable for disseminating information that did not correspond to reality or tarnished one’s reputation or honour or otherwise impinged upon one’s rights and legitimate interests, where such information was contained in a reply to a request for information or in a press release issued by a public authority or another organisation. 4.     Personal Data Act of 27 July 2006 49.     Section 3 of the Act defines “personal data” as any information directly or indirectly identifying a specific person. 50.     A journalist can process such data without the consent of the person concerned for the purposes of his professional activities and/or the lawful activities of the mass media, provided that such processing does not violate the person’s rights (section 6 of the Act). 5.     Code of Criminal Procedure 51.     Article 161 of the Code provides that an investigator may authorise the disclosure of “information” relating to the preliminary investigation of a criminal case if such disclosure does not impinge upon the investigation and does not violate the rights or legitimate interests of the persons involved in the investigation. The investigator should determine the extent of the disclosure. B.     Other material 52.     In 2009 the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia stated that a detention decision taken at the pre-trial stage of proceedings continued to be valid following submission of the criminal case for trial but only within the time ‑ limit set in that detention decision (ruling no. 22 of 29 October 2009, paragraph 20). 53 .     Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as worded at the time, provided for a procedure for lodging a claim challenging actions or inaction on the part of public officials that had adversely affected a person’s rights or freedoms. Such a claim could be lodged within three months of the date on which the person concerned learned of the violation of his or her rights or freedoms (Article 256 of the CCP). 54.     The Plenary Supreme Court of Russia considered, in a differing context of claims arising from unlawful actions by bailiffs, that a monetary claim for compensation under Article 1069 of the Civil Code could not be dismissed merely because there had been no separate proceeding resulting in an acknowledgment that a bailiff’s (in)action had been in breach of Russian law; a civil court dealing with the compensation claim would need to assess the legality in the compensation case (ruling no.   50 of 17   November 2015, paragraph 82). It is unclear whether a similar approach is prescribed for claims under Article 1070 § 1 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 1100 relating to detention under the Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular as regards situation mentioned in paragraph 52 above (see, however, decision no.   1049-O of 2 July 2013 by the Russian Constitutional Court, and cassation decision no. 33-1335 of 14   February 2011 by the Perm Regional Court). THE LAW I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 55.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their factual and legal similarities. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 56.     The first applicant, Mr Mityanin, complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention from 20 February until 10   March 2004 had been unlawful. He also alleged that his detention from 5   October 2004 until 14   March 2005 had been unlawful, and that this unlawfulness had in turn adversely affected the lawfulness of the relevant calculations made under Articles 109 and 255 of the CCrP relating to the ensuing period of his detention until June 2005 (see Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia , no. 23691/06, §§   89 ‑ 95, 18 June 2009). 57.     The second applicant, Mr Leonov, complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention from 20 February until 29 April 2004 had been unlawful. 58.     Article 5 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...” A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government 59.     The Government argued that the first applicant had not been detained prior to 29 April 2004 and that he had first raised the above ‑ mentioned matters relating to his detention in an application form dated 13   June 2006. The matters relating to February and March 2004 had been raised before the Court on 11 September 2013, while the relevant domestic proceedings had ended on 27 December 2012. The Government also submitted that, as of 2006, domestic remedies had not yet been exhausted by the applicant in respect of this period. 60 .     As to the second applicant, the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In their further observations the Government maintained their position on the merits and raised an admissibility issue, arguing that the applicant should have raised the complaint within six months of the end of the situation complained of. The remedies he had used were not to be taken into account. In particular, a civil action in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of unlawful detention was not subject to any time-limit, and had been used by the applicant years after the situation complained of (they refer to Norkin v.   Russia   (dec.), no.   21056/11 , §   15, 5 February 2013). 2.     The applicants 61.     The first applicant submitted that the Government’s submissions were factually wrong and that he had complied with the six-month rule. 62.     The second applicant submitted that the Government were estopped, on account of Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, from first raising an inadmissibility issue in their further observations in reply to the applicant’s observations. After being afforded an opportunity to comment on the Government’s further submissions, the applicant stated, in particular with reference to the subsidiary principle, that it was appropriate to afford the national authorities an opportunity to put right the alleged violation, which the applicant had done, initially without the benefit of legal advice. Namely, he had asked, to no avail, the criminal court in his case to issue a special ruling ( частное определение ) under Article 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Later on, in 2012, he had lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office and had then challenged its decision on judicial review (see paragraph 38 above). Lastly, he had brought civil proceedings against the remand centre on account of its allegedly unlawful failure to release him and on account of the non-pecuniary damage caused by that failure to release him (see paragraph 39 above). This course of action had had a reasonable prospect of success since under the Custody Act the head of the remand centre had had a clear obligation to release him, not having been served with any court decision authorising or extending the applicant’s detention on remand. The applicant had obtained a decision on the merits of this claim. 63.     The applicants further argued that the approach adopted by the Court in the Norkin decision specifically concerned a structural problem relating to the lack of effective remedies in respect of conditions of detention. No similar findings had ever been made by the Court in relation to issues arising under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Moreover, the Norkin   decision had been based on the Court’s earlier findings (in particular under Article 13 of the Convention). No similar findings had ever been reached in respect of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. On the contrary, the Court had generally taken a flexible approach to the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of this type of complaint and had accepted a variety of domestic decisions for the purpose of Article   35   §   1 of the Convention (see, regarding – inter alia – a civil action for damages Trepashkin v. Russia , no.   36898/03, § 66, 19 July 2007; Shulepova v. Russia , no. 34449/03, §§ 1, 15-27 and 36, 11 December 2008; and Fedotov v. Russia , no. 5140/02, §§ 1, 15-20 and 31-35, 25   October 2005; see, in respect of court proceedings against the head of a remand centre Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 27455/06, §§ 1, 32 and 39-40, 13 March 2014). B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility (a)     The first applicant’s detention between October 2004 and March 2005, and between March and June 2005 64.     As to Mr Mityanin’s detention from 5 October 2004 until 14   March 2005 and then until 4 June 2005, the Court considers that the domestic courts acted within their powers in making the decisions, and there is nothing to suggest that they were invalid or unlawful in domestic law (compare with A.B. v. Russia , no.   1439/06, §§ 153-59, 14 October 2010, and Miminoshvili v. Russia , no.   20197/03, §§ 70-74, 28 June 2011). Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. (b)     The applicants’ detention in early 2004 65.     The Court sees no need to examine whether the Government are prevented from making the six-month objection as regards the second applicant’s detention, since it finds in any event that it concerns a matter which falls under the Court’s jurisdiction and which it is not prevented from examining of its own motion (see Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no.   53080/13, § 71, ECHR 2016, concerning compatibility ratione materiae ) – in this case with the benefit of the submissions by both parties. 66.     In 2013 both applicants lodged complaints with the Court under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about their detention in early 2004 – namely that at that time there had been no valid court decisions authorising their continued detention during that period. 67.     First of all, there is no reason to doubt that the applicants were deprived of their liberty during the relevant periods of time. 68.     As regards the first applicant (Mr Mityanin), the impugned period of detention lasted from 20 February until 10 March 2004; the related domestic proceedings ended on 27   December 2012, and the first applicant raised his related complaint before the Court in his letter dated 26 June 2013 (see paragraph 21 above). 69 .     As regards the second applicant (Mr Leonov), the impugned period of detention lasted from 19 February until 29 April 2004; the related domestic proceedings ended on 3 December 2012, and the second applicant raised his related complaint before the Court on 7 May 2013 (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above). 70.     In the civil proceedings in 2012, Mr Mityanin asked the court to assess the legality of a period of his detention from 20 February to 10   March 2004 and, following that finding, to award him compensation on account of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful deprivation of liberty (see paragraph 21 above). The civil court did not dismiss Mr Mityanin’s claims on any procedural ground. On the contrary, it dealt with the question of legality as regards the period of detention and then examined and dismissed the related monetary claim. 71.     As to Mr Leonov, who brought proceedings under Chapter 25 of the CCP against the head of the remand centre where he had been kept, the court found that the head of the remand centre had been aware that the criminal case against the applicant was pending before a trial court. It concluded that Mr Leonov’s detention had complied with the legislation in force at the time. 72.     The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention allows only remedies which are normal and effective to be taken into account, as an applicant cannot extend the strict time-limit imposed under the Convention by seeking to make inappropriate or misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power or competence to offer effective redress for the complaint in issue under the Convention (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 130-32, 19 December 2017). It follows that if an applicant has recourse to a remedy which is doomed to fail from the outset, the decision on that appeal cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month period (ibid; see also Jeronovičs v.   Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, 5 July 2016). However, for example, the six-month time ‑ limit can be considered as dating from the decision resulting from the use of an extraordinary remedy (because it was not directly accessible, for instance) where, as a matter of fact, the relevant court did accept the case for examination and had the opportunity to set aside the impugned judgment, if necessary, and to remit the case to the lower court, and therefore to remedy the situation complained of by the applicant (see Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no.   22479/93, §§ 45-46, ECHR 1999 ‑ VI; see also Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no.   47579/99, 1 February 2005). 73.     In respect of both these two periods of detention, the respective applicants pursued a remedy which they were not required to pursue in order to exhaust domestic remedies, and in respect of both periods of detention they obtained a first decision from the domestic courts that the detention in question had been lawful (see paragraphs 21 and 39 above). There has been no suggestion, and there is no indication, that the proceedings had no prospects of success or could not afford redress. Thus, in the particular circumstances of the case they should be taken account as regards the applicants’ compliance with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In view of the above finding, the Court finds it unnecessary to determine whether the legality of detention was also at stake in the first set of proceedings under Chapter 25 (see paragraph 38 above). 74.     Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case the applicants complied with the six-month rule under Article 35 §   1 of the Convention by raising the related complaint before the Court on 7 May and 26 June 2013, within six months after the appeal decision of 3 and 27 December 2012 respectively. 75 .     The Court also dismisses as unsubstantiated the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion since they did not specify what (other) remedies were available and could provide adequate redress, and thus had to be exhausted. 76.     The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §   3 (a) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established. Thus they must be declared admissible. 2.     Merits 77.     The Court notes that on 29   January 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court extended Mr Mityanin’s detention until 19   February 2004. On 18 February 2004 the prosecuting authorities completed their pre-trial investigation and submitted the case for trial. It was then only on 10 March 2004 that the Town Court took a fresh decision extending the applicant’s detention. Subsequently, his claim for compensation on account of the lack of any valid judicial decision for the period from 20 February to 10 March 2004 was dismissed. The courts considered that during that period the case against the first applicant had been pending before the trial court and that his continued detention had thus been lawful. As to Mr Leonov’s complaint about his detention from 20 February until 29 April 2004, the Court notes that following expiry of a detention order on 19 February 2004, it does not follow from the available material that his detention was lawfully extended until at least 21 April 2004 when the Ukhtinskiy Town Court of the Komi Republic authorised his detention pending investigation. Having regard to its case-law on the matter (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia , no.   6847/02, § 144-51, ECHR 2005 ‑ X (extracts), and Lebedev v. Russia , no.   4493/04, §§ 55-59, 25 October 2007), the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention as regards Mr   Mityanin’s detention from 20   February to 10   March 2004 and Mr   Leonov’s detention from 20 February to 21 April 2004. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 3 AND 4 OF THE CONVENTION 78.     The applicants alleged a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in relation to their detention in that the domestic authorities had failed to exercise diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings; this had resulted in their being convicted in December 2006. The first applicant also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the refusal to examine his appeal against the court decision of 1 February 2006 rejecting his application for release (see paragraph 17 above). 79.     The Court considers that these complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established. Thus, they must be declared admissible. 80.     The Government acknowledged the violations in respect of the first applicant. As regards the second applicant, the Court notes that in their observations the Government clearly acknowledged a violation. However, in their final plea in those observations they stated that there had been “no violation” of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Given the fact that the second applicant’s situation was identical to that of the first applicant, and given the unequivocal position of the Government in respect of him, the Court considers that the final plea regarding the second applicant contained a typographical error. 81 .     According to the Court’s established case-law, under Article 5 § 3, where grounds cited by the judicial authorities to justify the continued deprivation of liberty are relevant and sufficient it should be considered whether the national authorities displayed “special   diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, as a recent authority, Buzadji v.   the   Republic   of   Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 87, ECHR   2016 (extracts)). Indeed, this was the thrust of the applicants’ complaint before the Court. It does not appear that the national courts took any heed of the related arguments. Taking note of the Government’s acknowledgment of the violation and the pace of the proceedings (in particular, various omissions between January 2004 and December 2006 (for the first applicant) and December 2003 and December 2006 (for the second applicant) resulting in the remittal of the case to the prosecutor and impeding the examination of the charge by the trial court), the Court concludes that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of each applicant (see also, mutatis mutandis , Radchikov v. Russia , no.   65582/01, § 50, 24 May 2007). 82.     Article   5 §   4 does not compel the Contracting States to set up a   second level   of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention. However, where domestic law provides for a system of appeal, the appellate body must also comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   4 (see   Lebedev , cited above, § 96). Taking note of the Government’s acknowledgment, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as to the refusal to examine the first applicant’s appeal against the court