Last Updated on June 23, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KHALIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 35205/19 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Khalimov 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 2 June 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 unreasonably 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. Some 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees and lack of speedy review of detention matters; Govorushko v. Russia, no. 42940/06, 25 October 2007, and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 35205/19, 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 Article 35 § 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, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. 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 complaints about unreasonably excessive length of the applicants’ detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and the remainder of application no. 35205/19 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these applications 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 23 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. | 35205/19
17/06/2019 |
Roman Vyacheslavovich KHALIMOV
1992 |
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog |
11/12/2018 –
15/11/2021 |
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov‑on-Don;
Rostov Regional Court |
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 5 day(s) | fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of poor conditions of transport;
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van on numerous occasions from the detention facility to the courthouse from 12/12/2018 and still ongoing; lack of space, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature. |
4,000 |
| 2. | 46688/19
19/08/2019 |
Rustem Ayadarovich NABIYEV
1982 |
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan |
04/10/2017 –
pending |
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic |
More than 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)
|
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | 4,700 | |
| 3. | 54284/19
08/10/2019 |
Pavel Anatolyevich ANTONOV
1982 |
Kubanova Nadezhda Dmitriyevna
Moscow |
11/04/2019 to
11/06/2021 |
Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 1 day(s)
|
collective detention orders; 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 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 order – Khamovnicheskiy District Court, 13/04/2019; upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 05/06/2019;
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – confinement in a metal cage in a courtroom of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court during the proceedings concerning pre-trial detention and trial hearings on 13/04/2019. |
9,750 |
| 4. | 60152/19
15/11/2019 |
Zaur Mukhtarovich KURSHAYEV
1976 |
Ramatov Ikramzhan Israilovich
Vladikavkaz |
02/01/2015 to
28/11/2016 24/03/2017 to 25/09/2020 01/12/2021 – pending |
Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic | 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 27 day(s)
3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 2 day(s) More than 4 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 | 5,000 | |
| 5. | 62852/19
15/05/2020 |
Maksim Borisovich TIMOFEYEV
1973 |
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg |
28/11/2019 to
22/06/2020 |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Taganskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 6 month(s) and 26 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 | Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate, compensation for arrest or detention effected in violation of the guarantees under
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. |
1,000 |
| 6. | 63628/19
26/11/2019 |
Valeriy Zaudinovich KARDANOV
1957 |
Taysayeva Viktoriya Leonidovna
Moscow |
15/12/2018 to
05/02/2020 |
Pyatigorsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic; Stavropol Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 22 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – detention in metal cage in court hearings before the Pyatigorsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic in the course of the criminal proceedings. | 9,750 |
| 7. | 2343/20
09/12/2019 |
Vera Aleksandrovna REDCHITS
1976 |
Kustova Nataliya Sergeyevna
St Petersburg |
13/02/2018 to
28/01/2021 |
St Petersburg City Court | 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 16 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 | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – detention in a metal cage in the detention facility during court hearings of St Petersburg City Court, concerning his detention on remand, in which the applicant participated via a video conference. | 9,750 |
| 8. | 10206/20
10/02/2020 |
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich ATAYEV
1977 |
Tugov Nikita Aleksandrovich
Moscow |
08/12/2018 to
08/04/2021 |
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s)
|
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, particularly as the case progressed; 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, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | 2,500 | |
| 9. | 12814/20
14/02/2020 |
Aleksandr Gennadiyevich KORKIN
1976 |
Sidorov Vyacheslav Vitalyevich
Moscow |
07/02/2019 –
pending |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | More than 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 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 | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow of 16/09/2019 and 04/12/2019 were examined by the Moscow City Court 59 and 49 days later
(on 13/11/2019 and 20/01/2020, respectively). |
3,500 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply