CASE OF KUVSHINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 36533/18 and 13 others

Last Updated on July 21, 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 KUVSHINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 36533/18 and 13 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 Kuvshinov 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. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 61918/19

6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no. 61918/19 which was not accepted by the applicant. The Court notes that the unilateral declaration did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike that application out and will accordingly pursue its examination (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7. 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.”

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12. In applications nos. 61918/19, 26512/20, 26950/20 and 45730/20, 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, §§ 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning confinement of a defendant in a metal cage during the trial; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2006‑III and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018, concerning unrecorded detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; 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; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, related to permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial and post-conviction facilities.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13. 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.”

14. 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.

15. 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. Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in application no. 61918/19 and rejects the respondent Government’s request to strike this application out of its list of cases;

3. Declares the applications admissible;

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;

5. 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);

6. 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.	36533/18 06/02/2019	Andrey Aleksandrovich KUVSHINOV 1971	Kostyushev Vladimir Yuryevich Moscow	14/05/2018 to 27/08/2020	Pskov Regional Court	2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 14 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		2,400
2.	61918/19 20/11/2019	Petr Nikolayevich KOROTKOV 1977	Kostetskiy Denis Gennadiyevich Moscow	15/07/2018 to 09/06/2020	Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov, Leninskiy District Court of Tambov, Tambov Region Court	1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts	Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – detention in a metal cage in several hearings during the criminal proceedings against the applicant	9,750
3.	1395/20 14/12/2019	Sergey Aleksandrovich REDCHITS 1982	Dyrin Denis Arkadyevich St Petersburg	13/02/2018 to 19/02/2021	St Petersburg City Court	3 year(s) and 7 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		3,100
4.	9188/20 10/02/2020	Vladimir Borisovich ALEKSANDROV 1984	Korchagina Mariya Andreyevna Moscow	01/10/2019 pending	Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	More than 2 year(s) and 6 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 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		2,700
5.	9197/20 11/02/2020	Dina Sergeyevna KIBETS 1983	Smirnov Sergey Nikolayevich Moscow	01/10/2019 pending	Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	More than 2 year(s) and 6 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 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		2,700
6.	9314/20 10/02/2020	Tatyana Andreyevna DAVYDOVA 1987	Leysle Denis Karlovich Moscow	01/10/2019 pending	Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	More than 2 year(s) and 6 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 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		2,700
7.	19836/20 19/03/2020	Sergey Aleksandrovich MANVELOV 1982	Abramyan Vladimir Robertovich Pyatigorsk	03/06/2019 pending	Yessentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court	More than 3 year(s)	As the case progressed: 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; 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		3,100
8.	26512/20 09/06/2020	Sergey Stanislavovich NOVIKOV 1982	Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk	08/04/2020 pending	Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court	More than 2 year(s) and 7 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 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – Unrecorded detention on 8‑9 April 2020 in the Tomilino police station of the Lyuberetskiy District (Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018), Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Confinement in a metal cage in courtrooms of the Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region and the Moscow Regional Court on numerous occasions within the pending criminal proceedings	9,750
9.	26950/20 01/07/2020	Raip Magomedovich ASHIKOV 1974	Maralyan Anna Strasbourg	31/03/2019 to 30/12/2020	Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala, Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic, Third Appellate Court	1 year(s) and 9 month(s)	collective detention orders; 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; as the case progressed; explaining the length of the detention by “public interests”; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – on a number of occasions after 26 September 2019 it took the appeal court more than 22 days to examine the applicant’s appeal against those detention orders	2,300
10.	27979/20 03/06/2020	Pavel Aleksandrovich KLENYSHEV 1984	Nikiforova Yelena Mikhaylovna Orel	08/11/2018 pending	Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Orel, Orel Regional Court	More than 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 7 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; “white collar crime” charges; collective detention orders; 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		3,600
11.	31661/20 13/07/2020	Igor Vladimirovich BOLOTIN 1982	Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow	06/08/2018 to 14/01/2020	Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 9 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; 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fraud charges		1,600
12.	31900/20 14/07/2020	Yuriy Alekseyevich YEPISHIN 1987	Oblikov Yuriy Yuryevich Moscow	15/05/2019 to 04/06/2020	Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic, 4th General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal	1 year(s) and 21 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		1,100
13.	37951/20 13/08/2020	Bagautdin Magomedovich MYAKIYEV 1965	Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol	13/04/2019 to 20/02/2020	Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic	10 month(s) and 8 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		1,000
14.	45730/20 14/10/2020	Maksim Aleksandrovich MALININ 1980	Nikitin Gleb Alekseyevich Moscow	19/03/2020 pending	Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	More than 2 year(s) and 27 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts	Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the hearings before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – video surveillance in SIZO-7 Moscow since 30/03/2020 and pending, including in lavatory and shower rooms, Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The appeal against the detention order of 20/03/2020 was submitted on 23/03/2020 but was examined only on 15/04/2020; the appeal against the detention order of 18/05/2020 was submitted on 21/05/2020 but was examined only on 29/06/2020, Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings, Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention – Mityanin and Leonov v. Russia, no. 11436/06 and 22912/06, § 88, 7 May 2019.	9,750

[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.