Last Updated on December 10, 2020 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DVIRNIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 21552/19 and 3 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 Dvirnik 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. The applicant in application no. 59500/19 also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in relation to the absence of a speedy review of the detention matter.
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. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 59500/19 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no. 59500/19, covering the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 about excessive length of judicial review of detention, acknowledging a violation of that Convention provision and offering to pay 500 euros (EUR), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount to the applicant. The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.
7. The Court finds that, following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, this part of the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of application no. 59500/19 in this part.
8. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list under Article 39 of the Convention in the part covered by the friendly settlement.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
9. 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.”
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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. Decides to strike application no. 59500/19 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
3. Declares the remainder of the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
5. 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.
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 |
Period of detention | Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal | Length of detention | Specific defects | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 21552/19
08/04/2019 |
Vasiliy Vyacheslavovich DVIRNIK
1990 |
28/10/2015 to
06/10/2019 |
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;
Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic |
3 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 9 day(s)
|
Collective detention orders; 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | 5,200 |
| 2. | 46737/19
17/07/2019 |
Aleksandr Viktorovich GERASIMOV
1984 |
09/11/2014
pending |
Severodvinsk Town Court;
Arkhangelsk Regional Court |
More than 5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 14 day(s)
|
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
collective detention orders; 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. |
6,500 |
| 3. | 59500/19
06/11/2019 |
Aleksandr Valeriyevich SLIVETS
1984 |
28/05/2019
pending |
Syktyvkar Town Court;
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic |
More than 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and
25 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | 2,000
(awarded by the Court) and 500 (under the friendly settlement agreement) |
| 4. | 4413/20
25/12/2019 |
Yuriy Yuryevich POLITOV
1966 |
15/10/2017 to
22/07/2020 |
Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic | 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s)
|
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
collective detention orders; 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. |
3,900 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply