Last Updated on December 10, 2020 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 42732/12 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 December 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 42732/12, 77195/16 and 26690/18 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, 25 October 2007; and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 89-92, 1 June 2006).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In some applications the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. In particular, the applicant in application no. 77195/16 complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about excessively lengthy detention in violation of domestic law. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application with regard to Article 5 of the Convention. It thus considers that the applicant’s complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
14. The Court has also examined additional complaints raised in applications nos. 42732/12, 77195/16 and 10040/17. It considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of applications nos. 42732/12, 77195/16 and 10040/17 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to dismiss any additional claims for just satisfaction made by the applicants.
17. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, as well as the complaint raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 77195/16 admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 42732/12, 77195/16 and 10040/17 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 77195/16;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
7. Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Represent-ative’s name and location | Period of detention | Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal | Length of detention | Specific defects | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 42732/12
21/05/2012 |
Sergey Mikhaylovich ANANYEV
1965 |
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg |
07/12/2011 to
10/12/2012 |
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; Yelninskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region, Smolensk Regional Court | 1 year(s) and
4 day(s)
|
Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice. | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention. Detention order of the Yelninskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region of 07/02/2012, was examined by way of cassation appeal by the Smolensk Regional Court on 02/05/2012, i.e. 83 days later;
Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. The applicant was absent from a hearing on 07/12/2011 before the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, where it quashed the applicant’s conviction of 24/07/2003 and ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. That decision was not amenable to an appeal (Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 113, 25 October 2007); The applicant was also absent from the cassation appeal hearing on 02/05/2012, when his cassation appeal against the detention order was considered (Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 89-92, 1 June 2006). |
1,900 |
| 2. | 56642/16
02/12/2016 |
Ruslan Vladimirovich CHERENTSOV
1979 |
Korotchenko Natalya Gennadyevna
Vladivostok |
04/02/2015 to
14/02/2017 |
Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Primorye Regional Court | 2 year(s) and
11 day(s)
|
Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding (such as absence of any criminal record, him having a business in Vladivostok, family including three minor children, readiness to give away the travel passport, etc.); use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; “white-collar“ crime: several counts of fraud. | 2,700 | |
| 3. | 77195/16
17/11/2016 |
Mikhail Igorevich LOGINOV
1970 |
Morev Aleksandr Nikolayevich
St Petersburg |
09/09/2014 to
19/10/2018 |
Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg,
St Petersburg City Court |
4 year(s) and
1 month(s) and 11 day(s)
|
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding. | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – lengthy examination of appeals against detention orders of 07/06/2016 and 07/09/2016 (appeal decisions of 13/07/2016 and
12/10/2016, respectively). |
6,000 |
| 4. | 10040/17
30/12/2016 |
Leonid Dmitriyevich MATSUKOV
1967 |
Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich
St Petersburg |
14/12/2011 to
23/04/2013
05/09/2013 to 25/12/2015
18/05/2016 to 07/03/2017 |
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg,
St Petersburg City Court, |
1 year(s) and
4 month(s) and 10 day(s)
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)
9 month(s) and 18 day(s)
|
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation; reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
On 24/11/2016 the Court already examined the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention on remand for the period before 14/01/2014 and awarded the applicant compensation of 1,000 euros in just satisfaction (see Klepikov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 3400/06 and 12 others, 24 November 2016). |
5,000 | |
| 5. | 15349/18
05/09/2018 |
Gleb Olegovich POLYAKOV
1985 |
Dmitrenko Pavel Vyacheslavovich
Podolsk |
29/06/2017 to
15/11/2018 |
Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court, |
1 year(s) and
4 month(s) and 18 day(s)
|
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding. | 2,000 | |
| 6. | 26028/18
29/05/2018 |
Sergey Sergeyevich MAKAYDENKO
1979 |
Suslova Yevgeniya Georgiyevna
Belgorod |
07/11/2017 to
23/07/2018 |
the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod;
Belgorod Regional Court |
8 month(s) and
17 day(s)
|
Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. | 1,300 | |
| 7. | 26690/18
05/06/2018 |
Irina Vyacheslavovna KULEVA
1974 |
Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich
Moscow |
19/12/2017
pending |
Chertanovsky District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court |
More than
2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)
|
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – review of detention order of 23/12/2017 (Appellate Decision of the Moscow City Court of 29/01/2018); review of detention order of 19/02/2018 (Appellate Decision of the Moscow City Court of 11/04/2018). | 4,500 |
| 8. | 27893/18
11/05/2018 |
Aleksandr Yuryevich GRIGORYEV
1971 |
Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don |
30/10/2015 to
15/08/2019 |
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don,
Rostov Regional Court |
3 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 17 day(s)
|
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders. | 5,200 | |
| 9. | 29223/18
13/06/2018 |
Aleksandr Arkadyevich SEMIN
1962 |
Mazitov Marat Farukovich
Moscow |
14/10/2015 to
22/03/2019 |
Moscow City Court | 3 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 9 day(s)
|
Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. | 4,700 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply