CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2CB92E5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s493C1799 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     Communicated on 13 May 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37645/09 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich GOROKHOVETSKIY and others against Russia and 5465/10 Sergey Anatolyevich BOYARKO against Russia lodged on 26 June 2009 and 12 January 2010 respectively   STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 6 February 2009 the applicants, all Ukrainian nationals, were detained on board of their fishing boat by Russian authorities while fishing in the Sea of Azov. The boat was then moored at a military base, and on 9   February 2009 the applicants were remanded in custody on suspicion of poaching. On 6   March 2009 the applicants were released from custody after giving a written undertaking not to leave their place of residence for an unspecified period of time. The applicants were then placed on the boat under the supervision of military authorities and stayed there till 19 June 2009. According to the applicants, the boat was unfit for a prolonged stay of the crew. In particular, it had three sleeping rooms: two measuring 5.5   sq.   m and one measuring 3.75   sq. m. The boat was 23.05   m long and 6.8 wide. In the summer time the temperature inside was 40 degrees whereas the military base administration did not allow air conditioning to be installed. On 20   April 2009 the Temryuk District Court, at a preliminary hearing, extended the preventive measure without giving any reasons or setting a time-limit. The order was challenged on appeal by the applicants, but there is no indication that the appeal was examined. On 28   April 2009 the District Court ordered that the criminal proceedings be discontinued but extended the preventive measure until “the order becomes final” and did not provide any reasons. On 20   May 2009 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the order and remitted the case to the District Court while extending the preventive measure without giving any reasons or setting a time-limit. On 11   June 2009 the District Court again extended the preventive measure referring to the impending trial and stating that the applicants thus had “no immediate necessity to leave the Russian Federation”. The court did not set a time-limit for the preventive measure. On 18   June 2009 the District Court convicted the applicants as charged, sentenced them to a fine and released. On 29   July 2009 the   Krasnodar Regional Court upheld in the same session the judgment on the merits against the applicants and the extension order of 11 June 2009. It noted that the applicants were Ukrainian citizens, had no permanent residence in Russia, could abscond or pervert the course of justice. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about degrading conditions of the detention between 6   March and 19   June 2009. The applicants also complain under Article   5   §   1 that the courts failed to give grounds to justify the detention or to set a time-limit.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as regards the conditions of their stay on board between 6   March and   19   June 2009, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicants suffer a “deprivation of liberty” during their stay on the boat between 6   March and   19   June 2009, within the meaning of Article   5 (see Guzzardi v. Italy, §§   90-95, 6 November 1980, Series A no.   39)?   3.     Having regard to the judicial decision which did not indicate grounds for applying the preventive measures or set a time-limit for its application, was the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article   5 §   1 respected (see Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, §§   40-49, 27 June 2013; Fedorenko v. Russia, no.   39602/05, §§   48-51 and 54-57, 20   September 2011, and Stašaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 67, 21   March 2002)? APPENDIX List of applications     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by   37645/09 26/06/2009 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich GOROKHOVETSKIY 08/04/1962 Berdyansk, Ukraine;   Andrey Vladimirovich SIRYACHENKO 03/07/1967 Berdyansk, Ukraine;   Dmitriy Vasilyevich ILYUSHENKO 30/04/1975 Berdyansk, Ukraine;   Ivan Fedorovich GOREVOY 16/10/1980 Novoazovsk, Ukraine Aleksandr Borisovich VOROBYEV   Aleksey Aleksandrovich VOROBYEV     5465/10 12/01/2010 Sergey Anatolyevich BOYARKO 02/08/1973 Osipenko, Ukraine Aleksandr Borisovich VOROBYEV   Aleksey Aleksandrovich VOROBYEV