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 TRENCHENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 65143/19 and 14 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 Trenchenkov 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. In applications nos. 1815/20, 14099/20 and 15257/20, 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 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; and 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.
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, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above), 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 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. | 65143/19 10/12/2019 |
Vyacheslav Yuryevich TRENCHENKOV 1961 |
Zmanovskiy Nikolay Vitalyevich Irkutsk |
25/04/2018 to 28/05/2020 |
Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court |
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice | 2,200 | |
| 2. | 1815/20 27/12/2019 |
Vladimir Vasilyevich SHEVCHENKO 1968 |
Meleshko Aleksandr Valeryevich St Petersburg |
15/03/2018 to 19/11/2019 |
Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court | 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s) | fragility of the reasons employed by the courts | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – order of 26/07/2019, appeal on 09/09/2019, Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – on 19/11/2019 in the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – in prison vans from 06/06/2018 to 19/11/2019, Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. |
9,750 |
| 3. | 2178/20 25/12/2019 |
Valeriy Nikolayevich FEDOTOV 1972 |
Motovilov Andrey Nikolayevich Omsk |
07/03/2019 to 20/01/2020 |
Kuybishevskiy District Court of Omsk, Omsk Regional Court |
10 month(s) and 14 day(s) | 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 | 1,000 | |
| 4. | 7665/20 20/01/2020 |
Sergey Petrovich VOLKODAV 1966 |
Yurunov Pavel Viktorovich Moscow |
13/05/2019 pending |
Basmannyy District Court, Moscow City Court | More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 day(s) | 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 | 3,000 | |
| 5. | 8049/20 04/02/2020 |
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SLIVKO 1983 |
Kobelev Denis Valeryevich Moscow |
02/10/2019 pending |
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 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 | 2,700 | |
| 6. | 11871/20 13/02/2020 |
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich PERFILYEV 1975 |
Kuzmin Aleksey Valeryevich Samara |
22/03/2019 pending |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than 3 year(s) and 23 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 | 3,100 | |
| 7. | 12144/20 21/02/2020 |
Mikhail Sergeyevich KISELEV 1987 |
Rozhin Roman Aleksandrovich Moscow |
22/11/2019 pending |
Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than 2 year(s) and 4 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 |
2,500 | |
| 8. | 13245/20 26/02/2020 |
Pavel Igorevich KUZNETSOV 1977 |
Kachalina Yuliya Andreyevna St Petersburg |
31/10/2018 to 07/09/2020 |
Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s) | collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; white-collar crime charges (bribe) | 2,100 | |
| 9. | 14099/20 21/02/2020 |
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VYDYSH 1976 |
Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna Moscow |
21/06/2018 to 22/07/2020 |
Rostov-on-Don garrison Military Court, Military Court of the North‑Caucasus Circuit | 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 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. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport in overcrowded vans (either in the common compartment or alone in the glass cubicle) since 22/06/2018; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air, Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings, Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – detention in a metal cage during court hearings before the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Military Court since 22/06/2019. |
9,750 |
| 10. | 15257/20 10/03/2020 |
Abdurakhmon Suleymonovich SOATOV 1990 |
Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich Moscow |
24/08/2019 to 14/09/2020 |
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 22 day(s) | failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Appeal review of the detention orders of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow of 22/10/2019, 20/11/2019, 18/12/2019 took 30-60 days (appeal decision of the Moscow City Court of 21/11/2019, 16/01/2020, 21/01/2020). | 1,600 |
| 11. | 16646/20 23/03/2020 |
Sergeyus KHOLCHEVAS 1979 |
Mazitov Marat Farukovich Moscow |
12/06/2018 to 01/09/2020 |
Moscow City Court | 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | 2,300 | |
| 12. | 17036/20 16/03/2020 |
Sergey Vyacheslavovich VARFOLOMEYEV 1967 |
Lugantsev Konstantin Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don |
25/04/2018 to 25/12/2019 |
Krasnodar Regional Court, Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi | 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 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 | 1,900 | |
| 13. | 19572/20 08/05/2020 |
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ZAKHARCHENKO 1990 |
Shuravina Olga Vladislavovna Krasnodar |
21/11/2018 to 19/06/2020 |
Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 30 day(s) | use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint |
1,700 | |
| 14. | 19809/20 02/04/2020 |
Sergey Fedorovich RUBEZHNOY 1974 |
Koshev Vladimir Vladimirovich Stavropol |
26/06/2018 pending |
Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court | More than 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 19 day(s) | use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, 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 | 4,000 | |
| 15. | 20533/20 21/04/2020 |
Savva Usementayevich ALEKSEYEV 1979 |
Yarlykova Yelena Nikolayevna Moscow |
05/07/2017 to 19/02/2020 |
Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s) | 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice. | 2,800 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply