Last Updated on July 21, 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”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BOCHAROVA AND ENFIADZHYAN v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 10711/15 and 32228/21)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 July 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bocharova and Enfiadzhyan 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 30 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. They 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. 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. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings; and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007, as regards absence of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time.
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 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 21 July 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. | 10711/15 21/02/2015 |
Olga Pavlovna BOCHAROVA 1965 |
Mamayev Rustam Borisovich Moscow |
22/09/2014 to 06/10/2017 |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 3 year(s) and 15 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 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement in a metal cage in several hearings before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow since 23/09/2014 until conviction; Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against the detention order of 23/09/2014 was considered on 29/10/2014 (36 days); appeal against the detention order of 21/11/2014 was considered on 24/12/2014 (33 days); Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. |
9,750 |
| 2. | 32228/21 11/06/2021 |
Ruben Yuryeich ENFIADZHYAN 1972 |
Kirillov Yuriy Mikhaylovich Moscow |
01/10/2020 pending |
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than 1 year(s) and 8 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; collective detention orders | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Basmannyy District Court of Moscow issued a detention order on 26/11/2020; statement of appeal lodged on 24/12/2020; Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on 08/02/2021. |
2,400 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply