Kalyapin v. Russia (Application no. 6095/09)

A selection of key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.

77. In so far as Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention is concerned, the authorities should have borne in mind that the measure was applied in the context of an administrative offence for which the maximum statutory penalty was a fine of EUR 30. Article 5 § 1 of the Convention requires that for deprivation of liberty to be considered free from arbitrariness, it does not suffice that this measure is taken and executed in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances and proportionate (see Butkevich, cited above, § 64, and François v. France, no. 26690/11, §§ 52-56, 23 April 2015; see also S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 77, 22 October 2018). Where the aim was “to prevent [a person from] committing an offence”, it was incumbent on the domestic authorities to ascertain, inter alia, that the deprivation of liberty was “reasonably considered necessary” to reach that aim in the circumstances of the case. The available material does not disclose that the above requirements were complied with.