Last Updated on February 10, 2021 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ESTRINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 32944/14 and 6 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 Estrina 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 of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.Some applicants also raised complaints under Article 5 § 4 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.
10. As regards application no. 26938/18, the Court would like to stress, in particular, that this is the second application lodged by the applicant Mr Bondar concerning one and the same lengthy detention on remand period. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the first application (no. 56307/16) lodged by the applicant concerning his on-going unreasonably long detention on remand starting on 4 October 2016 (see Lastochkin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 7121/15 and 7 others, 29 March 2018). Following that judgment and after his conviction judgment was quashed on appeal on 15 February 2018, Mr Bondar remained in detention pending the trial proceedings against him and until his new conviction on 25 June 2018. In May 2018 he lodged the present application with the Court.
11. In this respect the Court reiterates that in the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which the Court found a violation of that right during a certain period, it is not unusual for the Court to examine a second application concerning a violation of the same right during the subsequent period (see Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 33, 10 April 2008, with further references).
12. The Court observes that the first application (no. 56307/16) concerned the applicant’s excessively long detention on remand. The Court delivered its judgment on 29 March 2018, having found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and having made an award in respect of the period preceding its judgment, i.e. the period of pre-trial detention prior to the applicant’s first conviction.
13. The present application, which the applicant lodged in May 2018, concerns the new period of the applicant’s detention on remand after the quashing of his conviction in February 2018 which was not covered by the Court’s judgment.
14. The Court acknowledges that it has no jurisdiction to review the measures adopted in the domestic legal order to put an end to the violations found in its judgment in the first case brought by the applicant. It may, nevertheless, take stock of subsequent factual developments. In this respect, the Court observes that the applicant continued to be detained for another eight months after the Court had delivered its judgment in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Wasserman (no. 2), cited above, § 36).
15. It follows that, in so far as the applicant’s complaint concerns the further period during which he continued to be detained on remand allegedly in the absence of proper reasons for that, it has not been previously examined by the Court. The Court therefore has competence rationemateriae and ratione personae to entertain this complaint. Moreover, when assessing the reasonableness of the remaining period between February and June 2018 for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court “can take into consideration the fact that an applicant has previously spent time in custody pending trial” (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 130, 22 May 2012).
16. Reverting to all applications in the present case and 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.
17. 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
18. In applications nos. 26938/18, 36331/18 and 36674/18, 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, cited above, as regards the length of the examination of detention matters, and Svinarenko and Slyadnevv. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), regarding placement in a metal cage during court hearings.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. 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.”
20. 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.
21. 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 applicationsadmissible;
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 |
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. | 32944/14 04/04/2014 |
Svetlana Vasilyevna ESTRINA 1964 |
14/06/2012 to 02/06/2014 |
Tatsinskiy District Court of the Rostov Region; Rostov Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s) | Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, economic („white-collar“) crime. | 2,600 | |
| 2. | 64376/16 27/10/2016 |
Aleksandr Viktorovich YAROSHENKO 1985 |
29/05/2015 to 20/04/2017 |
Ukhta Town Court; Ezhvinsk Town Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic |
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 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; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. | 2,700 | |
| 3. | 26938/18 08/05/2018 |
Artem Vladimirovich BONDAR 1986 |
17/09/2013 to 10/07/2017 and 15/02/2018 to 25/06/2018 |
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 24 day(s) 4 month(s) and 11 day(s) |
Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention from 07/09/2013 until his conviction on 10/07/2017 (see Lastochkin and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 7121/15 and 7 others, 29 March 2018). However, on 15/02/2018 the conviction judgment was reversed and the applicant’s pre-trial detention was again authorised until his new conviction on 25/06/2018 |
Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – The applicant’s appellate complaint, where he was challenging his detention, was dismissed without consideration on the merits (Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 10/04/2018). | 650 |
| 4. | 30383/18 06/06/2018 |
Andrey Petrovich KARAKAY 1984 |
28/08/2017 to 27/11/2018 |
Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) | 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 |
1,700 | |
| 5. | 36331/18 16/07/2018 |
Denis Viktorovich VOLCHKOV 1976 |
31/10/2015 to 15/08/2019 |
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don; Rostov Regional Court |
3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 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. |
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – review (48 days) of the first-instance court decision dated 12/12/2017 extending the applicant’s detention (appeal on 29/01/2018). Art. 3 – use of metalcages and/or othersecurity arrangements in courtrooms -detention during court hearings dealing with the extension of theapplicant’s detentionbefore the LeninskiyDistrict Court of Rostov-on-Don; and detention in a metal cage during the appeal proceedingsbefore the Rostov Regional Court |
9,750 |
| 6. | 36674/18 20/07/2018 |
Pavel Vladimirovich BABAYEV 1979 |
19/05/2016 to 24/09/2020 |
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic | 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 6 day(s) | Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; 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. | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic of 05/12/2017, 05/03/2018 and 06/06/2018 were not examined speedily: the detention orders were upheld on appeal by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on 23/01/2018, 03/04/2018 and 06/07/2018, respectively (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154‑158,22 May 2012). | 6,400 |
| 7. | 7063/19 11/01/2019 |
Maksim Valeryevich PODOBREY 1987 |
01/07/2015 to 06/04/2020 |
Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk; Dzerzhinskyy District Court of Novosibirsk; Lipetsk Regional Court | 4 year(s) and 9 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 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; |
6,500 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply