CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1B434F12 { margin-left:9.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA09FA4ED { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:26.99pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.21pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s7A11F50B { margin-left:6.52pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s36C5EC9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.72pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s310CB710 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB998B5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s726BE6B4 { width:4.8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEA32F4F3 { width:4.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s639B43D8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s6614FFD3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:26.38pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.82pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s499543FD { width:6.87pt; display:inline-block } .sF75C69C2 { width:181.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION   CASE OF UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 76695/11)     JUDGMENT   Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Arbitrary administrative detention after charge of disobeying a lawful order by police • Lack of clarity on factual and legal elements underlying the charge • No adequate opportunity for applicant to benefit from legal assistance during trial • Domestic court’s superficial assessment of applicant’s alibi • Retention in hospital under guard of law-enforcement officers after expiry of applicant’s term of detention without justification • Deprivation of liberty with no legitimate purpose Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and 6 § 3 (b)+(c) • Fair hearing • Adequate time and facilities • Applicant’s   lawyer notified of ongoing proceedings half an hour before hearing • Charge involving certain complexity • Applicant accused of an offence punishable by detention and under arrest at the relevant time • No reasonable opportunity to put forward a viable defence Art 18 (+ 5 § 1) • Detention allegedly   aimed at intimidating applicant and impeding his civic and political activities • Submitted arguments essentially the same as those under Article 5 • Article 18 not a fundamental aspect of the case   STRASBOURG   6 October 2020   FINAL   06/01/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Udaltsov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides, President,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Alena Poláčková,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   76695/11) 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 a Russian national, Mr   Sergey Stanislavovich Udaltsov (“the applicant”), on 14   December 2011; the decision on 19 December 2013 to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 1 September 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION The applicant complained, inter alia , that he had been unlawfully and arbitrarily arrested, retained in a hospital and sentenced to administrative detention in late 2011 and that the administrative-offence proceedings against him had been unfair. THE FACTS 1.     The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Ms V.   Volkova, Mr   N.   Polozov and Ms   K.   Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Russia. 2.     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.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4 .     The applicant’s representatives before the Court submitted that he was a well-known political and civic activist, coordinator of the Moscow Council of the Left Front movement and member of the National Assembly of the Russian Federation, an opposition political organisation. According to the applicant’s representatives, he had been persecuted by the Russian authorities since 2010 on account of his political activities. He was prosecuted in administrative-offence proceedings over one hundred times, including at least thirty occasions when he was deprived of his liberty (apparently through the escort or arrest procedure). He had allegedly adopted certain positions that were hostile towards the authorities, in particular during and after the elections to the State Duma in 2011.   The applicant’s representatives maintained that he had been persecuted for his political activism and that the authorities’ actions had been aimed at preventing his participation in various opposition activities, in particular in protest rallies after the elections, originally planned to be held on 5 and 10   December 2011 (apparently, the latter was to be held at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow at 2 p.m. and the applicant was one of the organisers) and on 24 December 2011. It appears that the applicant recorded a video (from hospital) and that the video was then shown on a screen during the protest rally on 24 December 2011. Domestic proceedings Case no.   1 5.     The applicant was arrested on 12 October 2011. On 13 October 2011 Justice of the peace B. convicted him of an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter “the CAO”) and sentenced him to ten days’ detention. On 15   October 2011 Judge K. of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the conviction. 6.     On 13 October 2011 the applicant was taken to Moscow administrative detention facility no. 1 ( специальный приемник №1 ГУ МВД России по г. Москве ) (hereinafter “detention facility no. 1” or the “detention facility”) and went on hunger strike. On 16   October 2011 he was admitted to a civil hospital. Having been discharged on 19   October 2011, he left the hospital. 7.     On 21 October 2011 the applicant was arrested at his home and taken to the detention facility, where he served the remainder of his sentence. It appears that the applicant was released on 22 October 2011. 8 .     On 21 October 2011 the head of the detention facility brought proceedings against the applicant on the ground that he had left the hospital on 19 October 2011. The official considered that this conduct amounted to an offence under Article 20.25 of the CAO, which penalises unauthorised departure from an administrative detention facility. On the same day, the administrative offence file was submitted to Justice of the peace Be., who examined it on 10   December 2011. It appears that between October and December 2011 the applicant was summoned to attend court hearings. In view of his failure to attend, the justice of the peace issued an order to bring him before the court ( привод ). That order was enforced on 10 December 2011 (see paragraphs   28-33 below). Case no.   2 9.     On 4 December 2011, the day of the Russian parliamentary elections, the applicant was escorted to Kitay-Gorod police station in Moscow. 10 .     The escort record compiled by officer K. indicates that the escort procedure under Article   27.2 of the CAO was applied at 1.55 p.m. “for the purpose of compiling an offence record” in respect of an unspecified offence. Thereafter, at 2.05 p.m., the applicant was subjected to the arrest procedure under Article 27.3 of the CAO. The arrest record compiled by officer I. indicates that this procedure was applied “for the purpose of compiling an offence record” for an offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO. 11.     According to the offence record compiled by officer I., the applicant had committed an offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO at 4 Staraya Ploshchad Street in Moscow at 1.45 p.m. on 4 December 2011. The circumstances of the offence were described as follows: “[The applicant] disobeyed lawful orders from police officers ... Specifically, he crossed the road at an unauthorised location, in breach of the traffic regulations applicable to pedestrians. Police officers A. and K. stopped [the applicant] and requested him to accompany them to Kitay-Gorod police station for the purpose of compiling an offence record. The applicant refused and used rude language. In reply to the lawful orders to get into a police vehicle, he started to pull away using his hands, grabbed the officers’ uniforms and tried to create a disturbance among other people at the scene. He thereby expressed his refusal to comply with [the officers’] lawful orders and impeded the exercise of [their] official duties, contrary to Article   19.3 of the CAO.” 12.     Officers A. and K. issued reports to their superior officer drafted in identical terms. 13.     The police submitted the case file to Justice of the peace B. for adjudication. She scheduled a hearing for 4.30 p.m. 14.     At the applicant’s request, at 4 p.m. officer I. telephoned the applicant’s lawyer and informed him that the applicant would be brought before Justice of the peace B. for trial at 4.30 p.m. 15.     The applicant lodged a request for adjournment indicating that his counsel was on his way to the court; that it was necessary to summon G., who had been present during the applicant’s arrest on the same day; and that he had no possibility to summon that witness himself since his mobile phone had been seized in Kitay-Gorod police station. 16.     The justice of the peace refused to adjourn. At 5 p.m. she ruled that the defendant was not being restricted in his ability to adduce evidence; that no evidence to the contrary had been adduced; that counsel had been notified of the hearing at 4   p.m. but had not yet arrived at the courthouse; and that counsel had not informed the court of the reasons for his absence and had not submitted any authority form authorising him to represent the defendant. 17.     The justice of the peace granted the applicant’s request to study the case file. 18 .     Officers A. and K. were present at the trial hearing. They signed the following oath: “I have been informed of my civic duty and obligation to provide truthful testimony, that is, to tell everything I know about the case, to reply to the questions and to sign the record. I have been informed of my liability for an administrative offence under Article 17.9 of the CAO should I deliberately give false testimony, and under Article 17.7 of the CAO should I refuse or evade my duties as prescribed by Article 25.6(2) of the CAO. [handwritten note] I have been informed of Article 51 of the Constitution.” 19.     Officers A. and K. were interviewed at the court’s request and made statements to the trial court in terms that corresponded to their earlier reports. 20.     By a judgment of 4 December 2011 Justice of the peace B. convicted the applicant under Article 19.3 of the CAO and sentenced him to a five-day term of administrative detention, starting at 1.55 p.m. on 4   December 2011. The judgment reads as follows: “At 1.45 p.m. on 4 December 2011 [the applicant] crossed the road at an unauthorised location at 4 Staraya Ploshchad Street, in breach of the traffic regulations. He was stopped by officers A. and K., who requested him to follow them to the police station for the purpose of compiling an offence record. [The applicant] refused, using rude language; he refused to get into the police vehicle, tried to pull away and pushed the officers away. He thereby manifested his refusal to comply with lawful orders from the police officers and impeded them in the exercise of their official duties ... The defendant stated that at around noon on 4 December 2011 he was visiting an acquaintance in the area of Leningradskiy Prospekt. Having left the flat with that person, he was approached by three people who introduced themselves as police officers and asked him to accompany them. He agreed, and got into a police vehicle which took them to Kitay-Gorod police station ...   Officer K. stated ... Officer A. stated... The court concludes that the defendant’s guilt is established on account of the following evidence that has been examined by it: the offence record..., the arrest record ..., reports from officers A. and K. ... The court is not convinced by the defendant’s arguments as to his innocence, and does not consider them reliable because they are not corroborated by any evidence and are not consistent with the available written evidence. On the contrary, his arguments are refuted by the oral statements made by officers K. and A. before this court. The court sees no reason not to consider these reliable ... The available evidence confirms that [the applicant] did not comply with lawful orders from officers K. and A. requiring him to cease his actions in breach of public order. The officers’ orders were lawful because they had been issued in the exercise of their official duties ... They identified [the applicant] as having been in breach of the traffic regulations. Their order to the applicant to accompany them to the police station for the purpose of compiling an offence record was aimed at putting an end to the offence and at prosecuting [the applicant] for it. [The applicant] consistently refused to comply with the above lawful orders by refusing to go to the police station and by pushing the officers away.” 21.     The applicant and his counsel appealed, arguing that he had not been at 4 Staraya Ploshchad Street at the material time, but had been in a different location, next to Sokol metro station. They further argued that the court had violated the applicant’s defence rights by refusing to adjourn, even for 30 minutes, so that his counsel could arrive at the courthouse. 22.     An appeal hearing before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow was listed for 5 December 2011. 23.     The applicant was taken to the appeal hearing. His counsel was also present. 24.     The appeal court granted the defence’s request to examine G. and the applicant’s wife. G. stated that on 4 December 2011 the applicant had been at his flat on Leningradskiy Prospekt; at around noon they had left the flat and had gone to G.’s car. They had then been approached by four people wearing plain clothes. One person had shown a document that resembled a police officer’s card. Thereafter three others had taken the applicant and driven him away in a vehicle. G. had then called the applicant’s wife. 25.     The defence adduced in evidence a printout from the Internet pages of some news portals containing a news item published at around 1 p.m. on 4   December 2011 stating that the applicant had been apprehended next to Sokol metro station. The appeal court refused to admit the printout in evidence because there was “no need” for that evidence and counsel had not specified the source of the information published on the Internet. 26.     On 5 December 2011 Judge K. of the District Court upheld the judgment of the justice of the peace. The judge held as follows: “Despite his not guilty plea, [the applicant’s] guilt is established by the offence record, the pre-trial reports and the oral statements made at the trial by officers K. and A. The justice of the peace rightly concluded on the basis of that evidence that [the applicant] had consistently refused to comply with lawful orders from the police officers requiring him to cease his actions in breach of public order but, instead, he had continued with those actions ... During the [appeal] hearing, at the request of defence counsel, the following witnesses were interviewed: G. and [the applicant’s wife] ... Having assessed the defence witnesses’ testimonies, the court declares them untruthful and rejects them. They have been refuted by the testimonies from officers A. and K.; those testimonies are logical and consistent and have been confirmed by all the available written evidence.” 27.     The applicant went on hunger strike, refusing both food and water. During the night of 7 December 2011 he was taken to Moscow City Botkin Hospital (“Botkin hospital”). In the applicant’s submission, after his admission to hospital he was deemed to have been “released” and thus should have been able to leave the hospital when he considered it appropriate. Apparently, he intended to take part in a large public gathering on 10 December 2011. However, he remained in the hospital being guarded by law-enforcement officers in plain clothes.   On 10 December 2011 the applicant was not released but was brought before Justice of the peace Be. in relation to another case (see below). Case no. 3 28 .     As indicated in paragraph 8 above, in October 2011 the head of the detention facility brought proceedings against the applicant in relation to his leaving the hospital on 19   October 2011. 29 .     It appears that court hearings were listed for 25 October and 3 and 7   November 2011. On 7 November 2011 Justice of the peace Be. issued an order for the applicant to be brought before the court ( привод ) on account of his failure to attend these hearings. Similar orders were then issued on 14   and 21 November 2011 and on 1 and 5 December 2011. 30.     On 9 December 2011 Justice of the peace Be. issued another order requiring the police to bring the applicant before the justice of the peace ( привод ) at 9   a.m. on 10 December 2011. By that time the applicant had been admitted to hospital. On 10 December 2011 he was discharged from the hospital. He was brought before Justice of the peace Be. at around 1   p.m. on a charge of leaving the hospital without permission on 19 October 2011. 31.     A court bailiff allegedly prevented the applicant’s lawyers from entering the courthouse on 10 December 2011. Having heard evidence from the applicant, Justice of the peace Be. convicted him of leaving a detention facility without permission on 19 October 2011. The court sentenced the applicant to fifteen days’ administrative detention. 32.     On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow for appeal proceedings. However, those proceedings were adjourned on account of the applicant’s state of health. The applicant was admitted to hospital. In the applicant’s submission, after his admission to hospital he was deemed to have been “released” and thus should have been able to leave the hospital when he considered it appropriate. However, he remained in the hospital, guarded by law-enforcement officers in plain clothes. 33 .     On 12 December 2011 the District Court, having noted the applicant’s absence and having heard evidence from his lawyer, upheld the judgment. 34.     It appears that between 16 and 19   December 2011 the applicant was kept in a civil hospital, apparently, Moscow public hospital no. 64. 35.     On 22 December 2011 a judge of the Moscow City Court upheld the judgments of 10 and 12 December 2011 in review proceedings. 36.     In late December 2011 the President of the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered an internal inquiry. After interviewing Justice of the peace Be., her staff and court bailiff Kh., the assistant to the President of the District Court concluded as follows: that bailiff Kh. had been present at the applicant’s trial, held from 3 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 10 December 2011; that no other bailiffs had been present in the courthouse on that date; that at the hearing the applicant had not informed the court of any agreement concluded with counsel but had requested time to retain the services of Go. as counsel; that the justice of the peace had granted that request and had instructed the courthouse guards to admit Go. to the courthouse once he arrived; that the courthouse guards who had been on duty on 10 December 2011 were not available for questioning until January 2012 because they lived in another town; and that it followed from the security camera footage that at 4.48 p.m. two people had approached the courthouse and had introduced themselves as the applicant’s lawyers. 37 .     The applicant’s term of detention expired on 25 December 2011. On that date he was taken before a justice of the peace in connection with another case (see paragraph   44 below). 38.     At the applicant’s request, the Ombudsman for Human Rights in the Russian Federation lodged an application for review of the court decisions of 10 and 12   December 2011 under Article 30.12 of the CAO. 39 .     On 31 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the Ombudsman’s application and considered that Article 20.25 of the CAO made it an offence for a detainee to leave an administrative detention facility without permission. As hospitals did not fall within the scope of that notion, the applicant could not be lawfully prosecuted under Article 20.25 of the CAO for leaving the hospital on 19 October 2011. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of 10 and 12 December 2011 and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. Case no.   4 40.     The applicant was accused of resisting a lawful order by a police officer in the following circumstances. According to the authorities, several people had decided to hold a static demonstration ( пикетирование ) on 24   October 2011 in front of the Central Electoral Committee (CEC) in Moscow. This demonstration was aimed at protesting against alleged violations of electoral rights. The Moscow authorities had suggested another venue. On 24 October 2011 the applicant, among others, had been in front of the CEC, calling on passers-by to join the demonstration. A police officer had told him not to obstruct traffic since the applicant (and others) had been in the middle of the road. The applicant had resisted. 41.     According to the applicant, on 24 October 2011 he had been in front of the CEC for a one-person static demonstration ( одиночное пикетирование ) and had been arrested and taken, without any explanation, to a police station. After some time in the police station, the applicant was allowed to leave. 42 .     The applicant was assisted by two lawyers, Ms Volkova and Mr   Polozov, in those administrative-offence proceeding. 43.     According to the authorities, when studying the case file Mr   Polozov had torn certain documents out of the file (the offence record, the escort record and the arrest record) and had handed them over to P., a member of the State Duma. The latter had refused to return them, invoking his parliamentary immunity. 44 .     Having heard evidence from the applicant and his lawyers, Justice of the peace B. convicted the applicant of disobeying a lawful order by a public official and sentenced him to ten days’ administrative detention by a judgment of 25   December 2011. 45.     The applicant appealed. Ms Volkova submitted a statement of appeal. The case was assigned to Judge K. in the Tverskoy District Court. 46 .     In reply to a complaint from one of the applicant’s lawyers, the District Court judge enquired about the arrangements made for guarding the applicant in the hospital (see paragraph 56 below). On 31 December 2011 a senior police officer replied that the applicant was being guarded constantly by two officers. 47 .     The applicant retained the services of Ms Moskalenko as additional counsel for the appeal proceedings. On 30 December 2011 the relevant bar association issued her with a certificate ( ордер ) authorising her to proceed with representing the applicant. 48.     The applicant was released from the hospital on 4 January 2012. 49 .     On 7 January 2012 the District Court held a hearing in order to examine the appeals lodged by the applicant’s lawyers. The applicant waived his right to be present, indicating that he was ill and that his lawyers had all the case-file material. Ms Moskalenko and two other lawyers submitted further statements of appeal and made other written submissions to the appeal court. At Ms Moskalenko’s request, the judge allowed her fifteen minutes to study the file (instead of the twenty minutes she had sought) and then an additional ten minutes. Her further request for more time was dismissed on account of the fact that the file consisted of 82 pages, part of which did not constitute material evidence. On the same day the District Court upheld the judgment of 25   December 2011. Hunger strikes in late 2011 50.     While serving a sentence of administrative detention the applicant went on hunger strike on 13 October 2011. He was examined by the paramedic ( фельдшер ) of detention facility no.   1 who then notified the district prosecutor of the hunger strike. The applicant made a written statement indicating that he had no objection to being held together with other detainees and had no complaint about the material conditions in the detention facility. On 14   October 2011 the applicant felt unwell; a team of paramedics arrived and decided that he needed an inpatient examination. He was returned to the detention facility on 15 October 2011. On 16 October 2011 paramedics were called again and the applicant was admitted to hospital suffering from autonomic vascular dysfunction. On 19 October 2011 the applicant left the hospital. 51.     On 4 December 2011 the applicant was placed in detention facility no.   1 to serve another sentence of administrative detention. He declared a hunger strike, refusing food and liquids. The applicant was examined by the detention facility’s paramedic. A prosecutor was notified of the hunger strike. During the night of 7 December 2011 the applicant was admitted to Botkin hospital. The head of the detention facility requested the police to provide officers to guard the applicant in the hospital. 52.     According to the discharge summary, the applicant was admitted to the hospital in an acceptable condition; the preliminary diagnosis was anuria (failure to produce urine). The applicant was examined by a therapist and a urologist; an ultrasound of his kidneys, an ECG, an analysis of his urine and several blood tests were carried out. On 9 December 2011 the head doctor ordered the applicant’s transfer to another unit on account of an electrolyte imbalance. It appears that the applicant was transferred to the intensive care unit. Before or after that, on the same day, the applicant “resolutely refused to undergo a medical examination”. On 10   December 2011 the applicant “strongly insisted on being discharged from the hospital”. After a case conference of medical specialists it was decided that, as the electrolyte imbalance had been corrected and no life-threatening situation existed, the applicant could be discharged. The applicant signed the discharge form. 53 .     After his discharge from Botkin hospital on 10 December 2011 the applicant, after feeling dizzy and falling down after a court hearing, was admitted on the same day to hospital no. 64, where he remained until 12   December 2011. It appears that on the latter date he was taken to the detention facility. 54.     According to the discharge summary dated 12 December 2011, between 10 and 12 December 2011 the applicant was examined by several doctors (a trauma doctor, a neurologist, a urologist and a surgeon) and underwent several blood tests, a renogram, and ultrasound and CT scans. He also received intravenous therapy. 55.     Between 12 and 16 December 2011 he was taken to various civil hospitals for treatment, without being admitted. 56 .     It appears that between 16 and 19 December 2011 the applicant was admitted to hospital no.   64. From 19 to 25 December 2011 he was kept in the detention facility. Following a further conviction, the applicant was admitted to hospital no. 64 from 25 December 2011 to 4   January 2012. 57 .     For unspecified reasons, on 9 December 2011 several members of the Moscow public oversight committee ( Общественная наблюдательная комиссия г. Москвы ; an advisory body composed of members of the civil society who had authority to visit detention facilities, deal with detainees’ complaints and issue recommendations to public authorities) visited detention facility no.   1. In a visit report dated 9 December 2011 submitted to the Moscow Department of the Ministry of the Interior and the chief officer of the detention facility, they indicated that medical care in the detention facility was normally provided without delay; however, it recommended employing a doctor. Proceedings before the Court 58.     On 14 December 2011 Ms Volkova sent a fax to the Court, requesting the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of the applicant. She also submitted by fax an application form on behalf of the applicant and authority forms in respect of herself and Mr Polozov who at the time also represented the applicant in some of the domestic proceedings mentioned above. 59.     On 19   December 2011 Ms Volkova sent another fax, enclosing supporting documents in relation to her earlier request under Rule 39. 60.     In June 2012 the Court received a letter from Ms Moskalenko, enclosing an authority form signed by the applicant. Further authority forms were submitted in respect of Ms   Volkova and Mr Polozov. 61.     The Court requested the applicant’s lead counsel (Ms   Volkova) to submit the original paper version of the application form and the originals of the authority forms. In May 2013 the Court received a letter enclosing paper versions of the authority forms in respect of Ms Moskalenko, Ms   Volkova and Mr   Polozov. On 24 May 2013 the Court acknowledged receipt of the above correspondence as follows: “The documents ... have been included in the file concerning the above application ... Please note that the Court corresponds only with the applicant’s designated representatives ..., according to the authority forms dated 14 December 2011.” RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Russian law Compensation in relation to prosecution under the CAO 62 .     Article 1070 of the Civil Code provides for a possibility of claiming compensation on account of unlawful prosecution where it resulted in the imposition of a penalty of administrative detention. Pursuant to ruling   no.   5 of 24 March 2005 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia, claims in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful prosecution for an administrative offence are examined under the rules of civil procedure (see paragraph 27 of the ruling). 63.     It appears that, at least in certain regional courts, a claim for compensation under Article 1070 § 1 of the Civil Code failed where the court decision setting aside the conviction did not contain findings relating to the defendant’s innocence but was reasoned with reference to the expiry of the prosecution period rather than, for instance, the absence of   corpus delicti   (see appeal   decision no. 33-44053/2016 of 10 November 2016 by the Moscow City Court; see also appeal decision no. 33-273/2015 of 9   February 2015 by the Lipetsk Regional Court). Police Act 64 .     Pursuant to sections 2 and 12 of the Police Act, the police operate in the following areas: preventing ( предупреждение ) and putting an end ( пресечение ) to crimes and administrative offences, maintaining order in public places and taking action relating to maintaining order and preventing and putting an end to offences. 65.     Pursuant to sections 11(2) and 12(1) of the Police Act, the police have the following duties: to arrive without delay at the scene of an administrative offence, to put an end to unlawful actions (including administrative offences), to compile documents establishing the circumstances of an administrative offence and to ensure the safekeeping of evidence relating to that offence. 66 .     Pursuant to lines 1, 7, 8 and 13 of section 13(1) of the Police Act, the police are authorised to require others to cease unlawful actions, to escort a person (that is, to physically compel that person’s arrival) to a police station for the purpose of deciding whether he or she should be subjected to an arrest procedure (where that matter cannot be decided on the spot), to compile an administrative-offence record, to gather evidence and to apply other preventive measures provided for by the legislation concerning administrative offences. Medical care in administrative detention facilities 67 .     On 6 June 2000 the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation adopted a set of internal regulations for administrative detention facilities. These regulations provided at the material time that medical assistance had to be provided to administrative detainees in civil hospitals (point 9). When a detainee required urgent medical assistance, he or she was to be “released from the administrative detention facility with the return of his possessions” and was to be admitted to the civil hospital (point 8). The detainee had to continue to be accompanied by convoy officers until the moment of his actual admission to the hospital or until it was decided that he was no longer fit to be held in the administrative detention facility (ibid.). As soon as the detainee had recovered, he was to be taken to the detention facility to serve (the remainder of) his term of detention (point 11). 68 .     Pursuant to point 22 of the internal regulations, where a detainee refused food (in the case of a hunger strike), the head of the detention facility was required to enquire about the reasons for that course of action and to submit a written notification to the supervising authority and to a prosecutor (point 22). Measures were to be taken to address the reasons for the hunger strike. Detainees on hunger strike were to be kept in special cells and were to be subject to constant medical supervision. On the basis of a written prescription from a medical professional, measures were to be taken to maintain the detainee’s health. Where the detainee’s health or life was at risk a medical professional (or a duty officer) was to call on paramedics (ibid.). 69 .     Under point 17 of the internal regulations, detainees who were ill and required special medical care had to be detained separately from other detainees. 70 .     On 2 October 2002 the Russian Government adopted an instruction on administrative detention, which provided at the time that sentences of administrative detention under the CAO were to be served in administrative detention facilities (paragraph 2 of the instruction). Detainees arriving in the detention facility were to undergo a medical check by a medical professional, with the purpose of identifying any illness or any need for medical assistance (paragraph 8). Medical assistance was to be provided in public medical institutions (paragraph 9). Other relevant provisions 71 .     Article 20.25 § 2 of the CAO makes it an offence (punishable by administrative detention or community work) for a detainee to leave without permission the place where he or she is serving a sentence of administrative detention. 72 .     Under Article 30.17 of the CAO, when reviewing a final court decision the reviewing court is empowered to make one of the following rulings: to uphold the decision; to amend the decision where the defects identified can be remedied without re-examination by a lower court and such review does not worsen the defendant’s situation; to set aside the decision and order re-examination where a significant violation of the procedural rules has been identified, thus preventing a thorough and objective examination of the case; and to set aside the decision and discontinue the proceedings where, inter alia , the offence is insignificant, the circumstances of the offence have not been proven, no offence was committed, the elements of the offence ( corpus delicti ) were not present, or the prosecution period has expired. Council of Europe 73.     Recommendation no.   R (98) 7 of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (adopted on 8 April 1998) concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison reads as follows: “... 60. In the case of refusal of treatment, the doctor should request a written statement signed by the patient in the presence of a witness. The doctor should give the patient full information as to the likely benefits of medication, possible therapeutic alternatives, and warn him/her about risks associated with his/her refusal. It should be ensured that the patient has a full understanding of his/her situation. If there are difficulties of comprehension due to the language used by the patient, the services of an experienced interpreter must be sought. 61. The clinical assessment of a hunger striker should be carried out only with the express permission of the patient, unless he or she suffers from serious mental disorders which require the transfer to a psychiatric service. 62. Hunger strikers should be given an objective explanation of the harmful effects of their action upon their physical well-being, so that they understand the dangers of prolonged hunger striking. 63. If, in the opinion of the doctor, the hunger striker’s condition is becoming significantly worse, it is essential that the doctor report this fact to the appropriate authority and take action in accordance with national legislation (including professional standards) ...” 74.     For other relevant Council of Europe documents, see also Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine , no. 54825/00, §§ 64-69, ECHR   2005 ‑ II (extracts). THE LAW PRELIMINARY REMARKS 75.     The Government submitted that the applicant’s lawyers had not provided the Court with the paper version of the application form submitted by fax in December 2011. Thus, the applicant had not complied with paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction on the Institution of Proceedings before the Court. The application had therefore not been properly lodged before it. 76.     The applicant made no comment. 77.     Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 19   December 2013, the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The Government did not make any specific concluding plea concerning the absence of the paper version of the application form (for instance as regards non ‑ compliance with the Rules of Court or the application of Article 37 of the Convention). 78.     At present the Court has no reason to doubt that in December 2011 the applicant intended to lodge an application with the Court and that he authorised his representatives (including Ms Volkova, who also represented the applicant in some related domestic proceedings between late 2011 and early 2012) to do so on his behalf. 79.     In view of the above considerations the Court does not find it appropriate to reject, at this stage of the proceedings, the application for failure to comply with the procedural rules of the Court in force in 2011 (compare Pleş v.   Romania , no.   37213/06, §§ 16-17, 12 April 2016) or to apply Article 37 §   1 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 80.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance compatible with his decision to go on hunger strike. 81.     Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 82.     The applicant’s submissions were threefold: (i) the placement of a hunger striker in a cell with other inmates (who continued to take food) was in breach of Russian law (see paragraph 69 above) and had made the applicant’s hunger strike more difficult; (ii) the situation had been aggravated by the absence of a general practitioner in the detention facility and by frequent journeys to a public hospital for examinations or treatment as well as to courthouses for hearings; and (iii) the medical care provided to him had not been appropriate to his medical conditions and his decision to remain on hunger strike. 83.     The Government submitted that domestic law contained regulations for situations where a detainee refused food, including cases of declared hunger strike (see paragraphs 67-70 above). In particular, those regulations concerned the provision of medical care and supervision of the detainee concerned. Each time that the applicant had declared a hunger strike, he had been examined by the detention facility’s paramedic. Whenever his state of health had worsened, he had been examined by external paramedics and, where appropriate, had been admitted to hospital for treatment. 84.     First of all, the Court notes that in his application to the Court the applicant provided no details relating to his hunger strike in October 2011 or to any alleged deficiencies in the authorities’ reaction to it, in particular in terms of the medical assistance that he had allegedly needed but did not receive during that period of time. 85.     The applicant served several sentences of administrative detention in December 2011 and early January 2012. Even accepting that Russian law indeed provided for separate confinement of hunger strikers, possibly resulting in solitary confinement (see paragraphs 68-69 above), there is no evidence that the applicant was actually detained in an ordinary cell in detention facility no.   1 in December 2011. In fact, he spent a considerable part of the relevant period in civil hospitals. 86.     It appears that the detention facility was, indeed, staffed with an ancillary medical professional but had no general practitioner or specialist doctors (see paragraph 57 above). At the same time, the Court notes that on each occasion when he went on hunger strike, namely between 4 and 14   December 2011, the applicant was placed under the supervision of various medical professionals. For that reason and for the purpose of conducting tests and providing the applicant with other medical assistance, he was taken during each period of detention to one of Moscow’s public hospitals. On each occasion he was formally admitted to hospital for a period of time and received treatment there. In the Court’s view, the mere fact that the detention facility had no in-house general practitioner did not amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the context of the applicant’s hunger strike. Furthermore, there is no indication that the applicant’s conditions of transport were problematic per se under Article 3 of the Convention or on account of his medical condition. 87.     As to healthcare in detention, an unsubstantiated allegation that medical care has been non-existent, delayed or otherwise unsatisfactory is normally insufficient to disclose an issue under Article 3 of the Convention. A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question, the medical attention that was sought, given or refus