CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mai 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 53 May 2003 Gusinskiy v. Russia (dec.) - 70276/01 Decision 22.5.2003 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention of TV magnate on charges of fraud: admissible Article 13 Effective remedy Supervisory review of lawfulness of detention conducted after introduction of application with the Court: inadmissible The applicant is the former chairman of the Russian media company Media Most, which owns the popular TV channel NTV. In 2000, Media Most was in dispute with the State-controlled company Gazprom over debts towards the latter. Following the breakdown of negotiations, Media Most’s Moscow offices were raided by officials, who removed evidence of infringements of privacy allegedly carried out by the company’s security staff. This led to the pressing of criminal charges. In parallel, the applicant was under investigation regarding the transfer of a broadcasting licence from a State-owned company to a private company. He was interviewed in relation to this matter in November 1999. In June 2000, he returned to Russia to answer questions as a witness in another criminal case. He was arrested and detained for 3 days in Butyrka prison, described by the applicant as being very harsh and unsanitary, instead of the investigative prison of the Federal Security Service. He was questioned there about the licence transfer. The applicant declined to comment in detail on the charges, expressing the view that they were unfounded and politically motivated. His lawyers applied to the prosecutor for his release, arguing that his detention was unlawful, that their client had the benefit of an amnesty and that the charges were absurd. They also complained to the Tverskoy Intermunicipal Court about his detention. Following his release, the applicant was ordered not to leave the country. During his detention, the acting Minister for Press and Mass Communications offered to have the charges dropped if the applicant agreed to sell Media Most to Gazprom at a price to be set by the latter. The applicant accepted the offer. However, once the charges regarding the licence transfer had been dropped and he was permitted to leave the country, the company refused to honour the agreement on the grounds that it had been reached under duress. Regarding his detention, the applicant’s lawyers maintained his complaint before the Tverskoy Intermunicipal Court, which dismissed it. The appeal against this decision was disallowed shortly afterwards. A further criminal investigation was begun in September 2000 over the use of Media Most funds. The applicant was summoned for interrogation in November 2000, but did not attend. An international warrant for his arrest was issued and he was detained in a Spanish jail for 10   days in December 2000 before being granted bail. The Spanish courts rejected the Russian authorities’ extradition request in April 2001, finding that the applicant’s claims of a political conspiracy were not completely without foundation. Following the applicant’s application to the Court, a Deputy President of the Supreme Court filed for supervisory review of the decision of the Tverskoy Intermunicipal Court. Following the granting of the application, that court examined the substance of the applicant’s complaint and found that the detention had been justified. The applicant’s appeal against this ruling is currently pending. Admissible under Article 5 § 1 (c). Inadmissible under Article 13: The application for supervisory review acknowledged in substance that the applicant had been deprived of his right to seek judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention once released. The granting of the application led to a rehearing, at which the applicant had full opportunity to plead his case in substance. The authorities acknowledged the breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 13 and afforded redress for it. He was therefore no longer a victim.   © 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