CASE OF YEROKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 47274/18 and 7 others

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 YEROKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 47274/18 and 7 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 Yerokhin 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. 52381/19 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. In application no. 52381/19 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration which 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 cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [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. 47274/18, 9514/19, 18295/19, 45278/19, 52381/19 and 45121/20, 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 154-58, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport and 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.

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13. In applications nos. 9514/19, 18295/19 and 52381/19, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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.

15. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. 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.”

16. 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.

17. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 52381/19 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;

3. 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 applications nos. 9514/19, 18295/19 and 52381/19 inadmissible;

4. Holds that these complaints 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. 47274/18

14/09/2018

Anton Viktorovich YEROKHIN

1982

 

 

09/12/2015

pending

Moscow Regional Court More than 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 22 day(s)

 

As the case progressed: 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. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – numerous occasions of transport by van since 09/12/2015 (still on-going) between the detention facilities and the courthouses; overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to running water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to toilet, inadequate temperature 6,000
2. 9514/19

08/02/2019

Olga Viktorovna GORBACHEVA

1980

Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

02/06/2017 to

20/06/2019

Kotovsk Town Court of the Tambov Region, Tambov Regional Court 2 year(s) and 19 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – 66 days of review of detention order (Appellate Decision of the Tambov Regional Court of 10/08/2018 – Detention order of the Kotovsk Town Court of the Tambov Region of 19/06/2018). 2,600
3. 12678/19

20/02/2019

Rustem Fagimovich SALAKHUTDINOV

1975

 

 

14/03/2017 to

05/02/2020

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s)

 

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed 3,100
4. 18295/19

21/03/2019

Pavel Valeryevich PETRAN

1989

Kozyaykin Nikolay Yakovlevich

Moscow

20/05/2015 to

09/09/2019

Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(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; 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 Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order of the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, issued on 21/09/2018 – appeal decision by the Moscow City Court, on 23/10/2018; detention order of the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, issued on 23/11/2018 – appeal decision by the Moscow City Court, on 25/12/2018; detention order of the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, issued on 28/12/2018 – appeal decision of the Moscow City Court, on 26/02/2019,

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van in the period from 05/10/2017 to 19/03/2019; on numerous occasions; between the detention facility and the courthouse or to take part in investigative actions; overcrowding; passive smoking, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light,

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

5,700
5. 45278/19

05/08/2019

Yevgeniy Sergeyevich VEREMEYENKO

1979

 

 

21/03/2019

pending

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 3year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 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 detention order of 22/03/2019 was examined on 06/05/2019 by the Samara Regional Court.

The applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 18/06/2020 was examined on 23/07/2020.

3,800
6. 52381/19

27/03/2020

Oksana Pavlovna MURASHOVA

1974

Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

31/08/2016 to

30/10/2019

Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 2 month(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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of the 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 in court hearings from 26/02/2018 to 30/10/2019 in the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow and during appeal hearings by video conference before the Moscow City Court from 01/06/2020 to 10/06/2020,

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the detention orders of 06/08/2018 and 08/11/2018 of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow were examined on appeal on 12/09/2018 and 06/02/2019, respectively, by the Moscow City Court (37 and 90 days),

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – numerous occasions of transport between 26/02/2018 and 30/10/2019 between the detention facilities and the courthouse by van and detention in convoy cells, 0.25 sq. m of personal space; no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food

9,750
7. 62984/19

27/11/2019

 

and

 

45121/20

27/09/2020

Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOLBOV

1988

Chumak Nikita Vladimirovich

Moscow

16/04/2019 to

26/02/2021

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 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 –

Moscow City Court, 13/04/2020 –

First Appellate Court, 26/05/2020;

Moscow City Court, 15/07/2020 –

First Appellate Court, 18/08/2020

 

2,600

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

code