CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 mai 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 119 May 2009 Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (dec.) - 5829/04 Decision 7.5.2009 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Alleged political motives for detaining a well-known business executive supporting opposition parties: admissible   The applicant was a board member of and major shareholder in Yukos, a large oil company. In 2002-03 Yukos was pursuing a number of business projects which would make it one of the strongest players on the market, independent from the State. Around the same time the applicant became engaged in politics, announcing that he would allocate significant funds to support the opposition parties Yabloko and SPS. The applicant asserts that those activities were perceived by the Russian leadership of the country as a breach of loyalty and a threat to national economic security. As a countermeasure the authorities launched a massive attack on the applicant, his company, colleagues and friends, including arrests, criminal charges, extradition requests and searches of company premises. On 23 October 2003, while the applicant was on a business trip in Eastern Russia, an investigator summoned him to appear as a witness in Moscow on the following day. The summons was delivered to the applicant's office in Moscow, where his staff told the investigator that the applicant would be away for another five days and explained why. As the deadline had passed without the applicant having appeared before him, the investigator ordered his arrest. Early on 25 October, armed officers of the Federal Security Service launched an assault on the applicant’s aeroplane on an airstrip in Novosibirsk, from where he was flown to Moscow to be brought before the investigator. The investigator explained to the applicant why he had been arrested, interviewed him as a witness, charged him, and then interviewed him as a defendant. The applicant was subsequently detained on remand for suspected white-collar crimes. In May 2005 he was convicted and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant complains, among other things, that the conditions of his detention and his treatment during court hearings were inhuman and degrading; that his arrest in Novosibirsk was unlawful; that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest; that his detention on remand was unlawful on account of various flaws in the detention proceedings; that he was detained for an unreasonable period of time; that the hearings in which the domestic courts ordered or prolonged his detention offered no procedural guarantees; and that his arrest, detention, and prosecution were politically motivated. Admissible under Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, and Article 18.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes