GALEYEV v. RUSSIA - 19316/09 [2010] ECHR 795 (3 June 2010)

GALEYEV v. RUSSIA - 19316/09 [2010] ECHR 795 (3 June 2010)

The applicant failed to substantiate a real risk of ill-treatment if extradited to Belarus; however, his detention between 11 November 2008 and 27 April 2009 was not lawful as there was no judicial decision governing his custody during that period, constituting a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 795
Parties
Applicant: Dmitriy Ravilyevich Galeyev; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
03 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment on Admissibility and Merits
Outcome
Complaint under Article 5 § 1 admissible and upheld; remainder of application inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Extradition, Detention, Right to Liberty, Prohibition of Torture, Nationality, Refugee Status
Human Rights Law Criminal Law International Law Extradition Detention Right to Liberty Prohibition of Torture Nationality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dmitriy Ravilyevich Galeyev

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment on Admissibility and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's extradition to Belarus would violate Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's detention pending extradition was unlawful under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to substantiate a real risk of ill-treatment if extradited to Belarus; however, his detention between 11 November 2008 and 27 April 2009 was not lawful as there was no judicial decision governing his custody during that period, constituting a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Complaint under Article 5 § 1 admissible and upheld; remainder of application inadmissible.

Orders

  • There has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
  • No just satisfaction awarded as no claim was submitted.