Last Updated on June 9, 2022 by LawEuro
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”)
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BAZHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 15009/19 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bazhanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2022,
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. 15009/19, 33443/20, 35465/20, 36370/20 and 37125/20, 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 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. 5825/03, §§ 154‑58, 161-65, 22 May 2012).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. The Court further 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been 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 9 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina 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. | 15009/19 28/02/2019 |
Anton Yevgenyevich BAZHANOV 1974 |
Karpinskaya Kseniya Sergeyevna Moscow |
18/09/2018 to 17/09/2019 |
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 1 year(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 – The applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 16/11/2018 lodged on 19/11/2018 was examined on 14/01/2019 | 1,300 |
| 2. | 29199/20 27/05/2020 |
Aleksandr Ramizovich SHUKYUROV 1977 |
Malikov Anton Andreyevich Moscow |
31/10/2017 pending |
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation | More than 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 6 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; |
4,600 | |
| 3. | 33443/20 15/07/2020 |
Yuriy Pavlovich ARTOKHIN 1986 |
Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka |
16/08/2019 to 23/06/2021 |
Tushinskiy District Court, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court | 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(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 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 – – the appeal against the detention order of 10/12/2019 was examined on 15/01/2020; – the appeal against the detention order of 12/05/2020 was examined on 15/06/2020. – the appeal against the detention order of 14/07/2020 (lodged on 17/07/2020) was examined on 10/08/2020; – the appeal against the detention order of 08/09/2020 (lodged on 09/09/2020) was examined on 19/10/2020. |
2,700 |
| 4. | 33652/20 13/07/2020 |
Sergey Olegovich VLASOV 1993 |
Shogin Mikhail Igorevich Petrozavodsk |
21/12/2019 pending |
Petrozavodsk Town Court; Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic | More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s) |
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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; | 2,400 | |
| 5. | 34105/20 20/07/2020 |
Konstantin Vladimirovich VERKHOTUROV 1998 |
Belokon Aleksey Valeryevich Georgiyevsk |
05/08/2018 pending |
Promyshleniy District Court of Stavropol, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol | More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 day(s) |
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; | 3,900 | |
| 6. | 35465/20 26/07/2020 |
Gayane Arturovna ZAYNABUTDINOVA 1988 |
Samorukova Anastasiya Orestovna Moscow |
20/12/2019 pending |
Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(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 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 – detention orders of Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow, 20/12/2019 and 18/02/2020 examined by the Moscow City Court on 27/01/2020 and 11/03/2020, respectively | 3,100 |
| 7. | 36370/20 02/08/2020 |
Medina Khalidovna YAKUBOVA 1995 |
Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka |
06/08/2019 to 22/07/2020 |
Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 11 month(s) and 17 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 orders of 26/12/2019, 04/02/2020, 31/03/2020 and 26/05/2020 by the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow were only examined on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 05/02/2020, 02/03/2020 29/04/2020 and 29/06/2020, respectively, Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – the applicant was not brought to the court hearing on 31/03/2020 in which the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow determined the issue of the further extension of her detention. The court decided that the applicant’s presence could not be ensured in view of the sanitary crisis in Russia prompted by the dissemination of the COVID infection. The court did not attempt to organise the video conference with the applicant |
1,300 |
| 8. | 37054/20 21/07/2020 |
Aleksandr Anatolyevich SIZOV 1980 |
Abramov Pavel Arkadyevich Rostov-on-Don |
02/09/2019 pending |
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov; Rostov Regional Court | More than 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 4 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime | 2,800 | |
| 9. | 37125/20 04/08/2020 |
Viktor Nikolayevich POLOVNIKOV 1963 |
Dzhabirov Asad Sadykhovich Moscow |
16/01/2020 pending |
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic | More than 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s) |
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; “white collar crime” charges (bribe); 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint |
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Decisions of the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic, delivered on 17/01/2020; 14/02/2020 and 16/04/2020 were upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 12/02/2020; 10/03/2020 and 21/05/2020 | 3,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply