CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 16 December 2013   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25724/08 Yuriy Leonidovich CHEBANU against Russia lodged on 20 March 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Leonidovich Chebanu, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Nizhegorodskiy Region, Russia. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At about 3 p.m. on 10 April 2007 an identified person broke into the flat of Mr I.K., a police officer, threatened him with a scalpel, took a few valuables and absconded. On the same date a criminal investigation was initiated into the matter. At about 5.50 a.m. on 11 April 2007 two police officers, Mr S.A. and Mr   A.M., arrived at the applicant’s flat and took him to the Town Police Department no.1 in Avtozavodskiy district of Nizhniy Novgorod ( ГОМ №1 Автозаводсткого района г. Нижний Новгород ). Between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. the applicant was detained at the police station. He was questioned about his whereabouts on 10 April 2007 and at 11.40 a.m. participated in an identification parade. As a result, he was identified by Mr I.K. as the person who had broken into the flat. After the identification parade, at 2.05 p.m., the police drew up a detention record, according to which the applicant had been detained at 2   p.m. on 11   April 2007 on suspicion of the armed burglary. According to the applicant, only then he was informed of the reason for his arrest. On 12 April 2007 the applicant’s detention on remand was authorised by the Avtozavodskiy District Court in Nizhniy Novgorod. On 11 October 2007 the applicant was found guilty of the burglary and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed the sentence, pointing out, in particular, that he had been unlawfully detained at the police station for eight hours on 11 April 2007 and that he had not been promptly informed of the charges against him. On 1 February 2008 the Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court upheld the sentence on appeal, stating, amongst other things, that “... no violations of the criminal procedure during the applicant’s arrest took place”. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that his detention between 6   a.m. and 2 p.m. on 11 April 2007 at the police station was unlawful. Under Article 5 § 2 he alleges that he was not promptly informed by the police of the reason for his arrest and the charges against him. QUESTIONS 1.     Was the applicant’s detention between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 11 April 2007 at the Town Police Department no.1 in Avtozavodskiy district of Nizhniy Novgorod compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest and charges against him, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?