European Court of Human Rights

CASE OF BOKHONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on February 10, 2021 by LawEuro

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BOKHONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 74883/17 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 January 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bokhonovand 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,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 17 December 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. 74883/17, 249/18, 28330/19 and 820/20, 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 Article35 § 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, regarding the excessive length of the review of detention matters.

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In applications nos. 74883/17, 4237/18 and 820/20 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13. The Court has examined these applications and 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 the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article35 § 4 of the Convention.

V. 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. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detentionand the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table,admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 74883/17, 4237/18 and 820/20 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

(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 21 January 2021, 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
 Representative’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)[i]
1. 74883/17
18/09/2017		 Aleksandr Valeriyevich BOKHONOV
1975		 Ivanova Irina Aleksandrovna
Le Puy-en-Velay		 07/04/2017 to
29/03/2018		 Shchelkovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court 11 month(s) and
23 day(s)		 As the case progressed:
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		 Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Complaint about lengthy review of detention extension decisions by the appellate court: on 22/06/2017 (30 days after the first instance decision) 1,700
2. 249/18
19/12/2017		 Konstantin Anatolyevich PONOMAREV
1971		 Stavitskaya Anna Edvardovna
Moscow		 07/06/2017
pending		 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow,
Moscow City Court		 More than
3 year(s) and
4 month(s) and
15 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; “white-collar” crime; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention –
Detention order of 01/12/2017, appeal against it lodged on 04/12/2017 – appellate decision on 10/01/2018;
detention order of 02/03/2018, appealed against it submitted on 05/03/2018 – appellate decision on 02/04/2018.		 5,200
3. 4237/18
25/12/2017		 Dmitriy Valeryevich BORISOV
1985		 Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna
Moscow		 08/07/2017 to
22/02/2018		 Tverskoy District Court,
Moscow City Court		 7 month(s) and
15 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 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. Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention,
detention order of 09/06/2017 was upheld on appeal on
14/07/2017 (35 days),
detention order of 06/09/2017 was upheld on appeal on 02/10/2017 (26 days), and
detention order of 16/10/2017 was upheld on appeal
13/11/2017 (28 days).		 1,300
4. 14053/18
12/03/2018		 Kirill Viktorovich GOLOVASHKIN
1991		 Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod		 22/03/2017 to
03/08/2018		 Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 1 year(s) and
4 month(s) and
13 day(s)		 As the case progressed:
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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.		 2,000
5. 27001/18
31/05/2018		 Andrey Nikolayevich GORDIYENKO
1984		 Sergeychik Yuriy Sergeyevich
Moscow		 07/09/2017 to
21/10/2018		 Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and
1 month(s) and
15 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 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. 1,600
6. 14634/19
07/03/2019		 Aleksey Petrovich EKKERT
1980		 Sokolov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich
Khimki		 10/03/2016
29/10/2020		 Basmanny District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court;
Tagansky District Court		 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 20 day(s) Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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.		 6,200
7. 28330/19
17/05/2019		 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich LUKICHEV
1994		 MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow		 04/11/2018 to
14/03/2019		 Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad; Kaliningrad Regional Court; Moscow Circuit Military Court 4 month(s) and
11 day(s)		 Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts. Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against the extension detention order of 28/02/2019 was lodged on 02/03/2019 and was examined by the Moscow Circuit Military Court on 28/03/2019
(26 days).		 1,700
8. 47326/19
02/09/2019		 Aleksey Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV
1981		 Skoryy Mikhail Gennadyevich
Moscow		 15/05/2019
pending		 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court		 More than
1 year(s) and
7 month(s)		 As case progressed:
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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.		 1,300
9. 820/20
11/12/2019		 Vadim Eduardovich ROGOZHIN
1958		 Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna
Moscow		 04/12/2017 to
25/12/2017
18/06/2018 to
17/06/2019		 Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow;
Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court		 22 day(s)
1 year(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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.		 1,400

[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *