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.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KUVSHINCHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 39280/19 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 July 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kuvshinchikov 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 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. 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. 39280/19, 20881/20, 21125/20 and 22815/20 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), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 39280/19 the applicant also raised other complaint under Article 3 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 matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
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), 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 concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 39280/19 inadmissible;
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 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. | 39280/19 09/05/2020 |
Sergey Viktorovich KUVSHINCHIKOV 1980 |
Anikina Natalya Anatolyevna Moscow |
09/08/2018 to 30/04/2021 |
Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow; Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 22 day(s) | failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; “white collar” crime | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the applicant’s placement into metal cages in court hearings Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – in the Preobrazhenskiy District Court and Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; numerous hearings as of 10/08/2018 until conviction |
9,750 |
| 2. | 20881/20 02/05/2020 |
Rudik Gennadyevich GALUSTYAN 1988 |
Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka |
21/01/2019 to 12/03/2020 |
Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 1 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The applicant complains about the lack of speediness in the review on appeal of the detention orders adopted by the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow on 16/09/2019 and 29/02/2020. The first one was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 13/11/2019, while the appeal against the other one was still pending at the time of introduction of the application on 02/05/2020 | 1,600 |
| 3. | 21125/20 27/04/2020 |
Oleg Igorevich CHURA 1986 |
Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich Moscow |
12/12/2019 to 26/11/2020 |
Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | 11 month(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 | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 11/02/2020 extending his pre-trial detention was heard on 11/03/2020 by the appeal court | 1,300 |
| 4. | 21260/20 26/05/2020 |
Andrey Vadimovich KAREPOV 1972 |
Rayevskiy Artem Aleksandrovich Moscow |
18/11/2019 – pending | Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | More than 2 year(s) and 6 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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding | 2,700 | |
| 5. | 21263/20 24/03/2020 |
Roman Aleksandrovich GRIBANOV 1977 |
Abritsov Anatoliy Vladimirovich Moscow |
03/09/2018 – pending | Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; First General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal; Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow | More than 3 year(s) and 9 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 | 4,000 | |
| 6. | 21834/20 01/06/2020 |
Mikhail Stepanovich ANTYUKHOV 1981 |
Ivannikova Olga Aleksandrovna Mineralnyye Vody |
22/05/2018 to 05/03/2020 |
Mineralnyye Vody Town Court of the Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 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 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 | 2,000 | |
| 7. | 21839/20 29/05/2020 |
Nadezhda Vasilyevna SUDDENOK 1973 |
Propostin Andrey Aleksandrovich Tomsk |
26/03/2018 – pending | Zavodskoy District Court of Kemerovo; Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo; Kemerovo Regional Court | More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 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 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; collective detention orders | 4,300 | |
| 8. | 22536/20 01/06/2020 |
Artur Eduardovich SHARETDINOV 1977 |
Khabibullin Vadim Rustamovich Ufa |
26/10/2018 to 10/06/2020 |
Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa of the Bashkortostan Republic; Supreme Court of the of the Bashkortostan Republic; Leninskiy District Court of Ufa of the Bashkortostan Republic; Fourth Appeal Court |
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s) | failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; 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 | 1,800 | |
| 9. | 22606/20 23/03/2020 |
Aleksey Anatolyevich DENISOV 1979 |
Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna Moscow |
11/02/2020 – pending | Priokskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court | More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 29 day(s) | 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts | 2,400 | |
| 10. | 22815/20 22/04/2020 |
Oksana Korneyevna NAUMOVA 1968 |
Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna Moscow |
01/02/2018 to 01/10/2020 |
Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; First Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction | 2 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 | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against the decision of 01/10/2019 extending the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was examined on 15/11/2019 | 3,400 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply