Last Updated on February 10, 2021 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SOROKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 18764/18 and 4 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 Sorokin 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,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 under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In some applications, the 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. 18764/18 and 1940/20, the applicants also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the excessive length of the review of their detention matters (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.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 52304/19, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the application 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 application 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 application no. 52304/19 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 threemonths, 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)[1] |
| 1. | 18764/18 11/04/2018 |
Ivan Viktorovich SOROKIN 1985 |
Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich Moscow |
27/06/2017 to 14/12/2018 |
Tyumen Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint |
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Appeal against the detention order of 18/12/2017 was considered on 12/01/2018 by the Tyumen Regional Court (23 days) | 2,700 |
| 2. | 24732/19 26/04/2019 |
Yan Vladimirovich SIDOROV 1999 |
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg |
10/11/2017 to 04/10/2019 |
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 25 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint | 2,700 | |
| 3. | 36724/19 19/06/2019 |
Aleksandr Sergeyevich LOGINOV 1976 |
Petropavlovskiy Vladimir Nikolayevich Moscow |
17/12/2018 to 17/09/2019 |
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 9 month(s) and 1 day(s) | 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; | 1,300 | |
| 4. | 52304/19 02/10/2019 |
Boris Lvovich SHAPIRO 1977 |
Rayevskiy Artem Aleksandrovich Moscow |
19/02/2019 to 17/06/2020 |
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s) | failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; while the initial order of detention may have been warranted by the applicant having violated the conditions of his house arrest, the subsequent orders were based on repeated reasoning without further confirmation of the risks of obstruction of justice or re‑offending | 1,800 | |
| 5. | 1940/20 18/12/2019 |
Oleg Leonidovich VLASOV 1972 |
ShukhardinValeriy Vladimirovich Moscow |
28/03/2018 to 09/09/2019 |
Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 13 day(s) | failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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; | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of the Moscow City Court of 10/06/2019 was examined only on 16/08/2019 | 2,700 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply