Last Updated on July 28, 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”)
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14878/19 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 July 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pavlov 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 16 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. 14878/19, 27090/19, 28502/19, 46545/19, 41862/20 and 42918/20, 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), concerning the use of metal cages during court hearings; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters and poor conditions of transport of detainees; and Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, 30 July 2009, regarding lack of, or inadequate, compensation in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 14878/19 and 59549/19, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the applications 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.
It follows that this part of the applications 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 applications nos. 14878/19 and 59549/19 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 28 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 |
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. | 14878/19 19/02/2019 |
Aleksandr Vladimirovich PAVLOV 1983 |
23/01/2017 to 26/12/2018 29/07/2019 to 21/12/2020 |
Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court |
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s) 1 year (s) and 4 months and 23 day(s) |
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed. | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport; Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by van on numerous occasions during the criminal proceedings against the applicant (0.15 sq. m of personal space), overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet; Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 22/01/2018 was considered by the St Petersburg City Court on 25/04/2018. |
4,400 |
| 2. | 27090/19 05/11/2019 |
Aleksandr Vladimirovich AGAFONOV 1980 |
01/02/2019 to 24/12/2019 |
Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 10 month(s) and 24 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. |
Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. | 1,300 |
| 3. | 28502/19 14/05/2019 |
Yevgeniy Andreyevich IBETOV 1991 |
01/08/2020 to 09/06/2021 |
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 10 month(s) and 9 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. Prior to lodging the complaint, the applicant spent in pre-trial detention over two years and three months. The said period was examined in an earlier case (application no. 40558/18). The Court has found a violation of Article 5 (3) and awarded non-pecuniary damage to the applicant (see Maksutov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 33982/17 and 28 others, 30 July 2020). In the present case the applicant raises a complaint in respect of the further continuous period of his pre-trial detention. |
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention orders of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk of 24/10/2018 and 25/12/2018 – upheld on appeal by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 27/11/2018 and 22/01/2019, respectively, extension order of 11/06/2019 issued by the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk was upheld on appeal on 18/07/2019 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; extension 05/12/2019 by the Sovetskiy District Court, upheld on appeal 15/01/2020 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court. Extension orders of the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk of 03/02/2020, upheld on appeal by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 03/03/2020; Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement in a metal cage in court hearings before the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk and the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court during the entire set of criminal proceedings pending since 26/04/2018; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings. |
7,500 |
| 4. | 39316/19 11/11/2019 |
Abubakar Makhmudovich MISERBIYEV 1988 |
20/03/2017 pending |
Tomsk Regional Court | More than 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 9 day(s) | 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; 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. | 5,000 | |
| 5. | 46545/19 29/10/2019 |
Aleksey Andreyevich PRUDNIKOV 1985 |
12/04/2019 to 18/02/2020 |
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 10 month(s) and 7 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; collective detention orders. | Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. | 1,300 |
| 6. | 59549/19 29/10/2019 |
Feruz Ulukbekovich BAKAYEV 1988 |
03/07/2017 to 27/12/2017 11/09/2018 to 30/09/2020 |
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court |
5 month(s) and 25 day(s) 2 year(s) and 20 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. | 2,000 | |
| 7. | 14037/20 25/02/2020 |
Kikito Dzhanikovich KUPREISHVILI 1970 |
09/11/2014 pending |
Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court | More than 7 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 20 day(s) | Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | 5,000 | |
| 8. | 41862/20 02/11/2020 |
Denis Sergeyevich BAGAUTDINOV 1983 |
31/08/2017 to 30/11/2020 |
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 3 year(s) and 3 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 – Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 19/02/2020; Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 14/04/2020. Appeals examined by: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 17/03/2020; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 08/05/2020, respectively. | 3,900 |
| 9. | 42918/20 20/07/2020 |
Stanislav Anatolyevich SUKHOV 1979 |
16/11/2018 pending |
Syktyvkar Town Court, Usinsk Town Court, Supreme Court of the Komi Republic |
More than 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 13 day(s) | 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 | Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van and train, since 09/08/2019 and on-going; applicant transported on numerous occasions, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, no or restricted access to potable water; 0.5 sq. m of personal space; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. |
4,600 |
| 10. | 648/21 29/10/2020 |
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich LAGUTIN 1985 |
19/09/2019 pending |
Supreme Court of Tatarstan, Fourth Court of Appeal | More than 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 10 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; use of stereotyped formula to extend pre-trial detention. | 2,800 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply