The European Court of Human Rights published a judgment in the case of Mikolenko v Estonia, where it found a violation of Article 5 §1(f) of the European Convention of Human Rights due to the protracted detention of the applicant in the expulsion centre.
The applicant Nikolai Mikolenko is a Russian national and a former Soviet army officer who lost his right to stay in Estonia after the restoration of the Estonia's independence. on 29 October 2003, he was arrested because he had refused to comply with the order to leave. Mikolenko complained over the grounds of arrest, which was dismissed by local courts. He submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights, which was declared inadmissible (see Mikolenko vs Estonia (dec.), no 6944/03, 5 January 2006). The present case analyses his second complaint over the length of the detention.
The Court noted that compliance with domestic law is not in itself sufficient to establish lack of arbitrariness. One of these elements is the length of the detention, which should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued. Deprivation of liberty is justified only for as long as deportation proceedings are being conducted.
The Court observed that the applicant's detention with a view to expulsion was extraordinarily long (more than 3 years and 11 months). It must have been clear from early on that the applicant refuses to co-operate and the Russian authorities refuses to issue him documents in the absence of his signed application. Thereafter, although the Estonian authorities took repeated steps to solve the situation, there were also considerable periods of inactivity.
The Court also noted that after the applicant's release on 9 October 2007 he was obliged to report to the Board at regular intervals. Thus, the authorities in fact had at their disposal measures other than the applicant's protracted detention in the deportation centre in the absence of any immediate prospect of his expulsion.
The Court concluded from the above the grounds for the applicant's detention – action taken with a view to his deportation – did not remain valid for the whole period of his detention due to the lack of a realistic prospect of his expulsion and the domestic authorities' failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
The judgment in full is available here.
Press release on the judgment is available here.
|
