Last Updated on September 15, 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 NECHAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 25823/17 and 10 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 September 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Nechayev 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 25 August 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 cases.
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 cases 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. 25823/17, 6795/20, 24629/20, 31800/20, 7688/21, 7828/21, 7886/21, 11635/21, and 19568/21, 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 Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 25823/17 and 6795/20, 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. 25823/17 and 6795/20 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 15 September 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. | 25823/17 15/03/2017 |
Stanislav Vitalyevich NECHAYEV 1971 |
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma |
03/12/2015 to 06/03/2017 |
Sverdlovsk District Court of Kostroma, Kostroma Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 4 day(s) | Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice. | Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van between the detention facility and the courthouse between 09/11/2016 and 06/03/2017; Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Detention in a metal cage during the detention and trial hearings held at the Leninskiy and Sverdlovskiy District Courts of Kostroma; between 03/12/2015 and 30/03/2017. |
9,750 |
| 2. | 40551/18 18/08/2018 |
Gleb Anatolyevich YEMELCHENKOV 1977 |
Ponomareva Natela Vasilyevna St Petersburg |
16/01/2018 to 17/01/2019 |
Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court | 1 year(s) and 2 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 | |
| 3. | 46796/18 18/09/2018 |
Sergey Valeryevich YUN 1981 |
15/03/2017 to 23/07/2018 |
Leninskiy and Ussuriyskiy District Courts of Primorsk Region, Primorsk Regional Court | 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 day(s) | Collective detention orders; 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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding. | 1,500 | ||
| 4. | 6795/20 28/11/2019 |
Vadim Valeryevich ANIKEYEV 1982 |
31/10/2018 – pending | Arkhangelsk Regional Court; Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk; Primorskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region | More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 28 day(s) | 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 Arkhangelsk Regional Court of 05/12/2019 was upheld on appeal by the Second Court of Appeal on 03/02/2020. | 4,200 | |
| 5. | 24629/20 19/06/2020 |
Aleksey Anatolyevich KAYDALOV 1963 |
Zakatov Andrey Pavlovich Petrozavodsk |
06/02/2020 – pending | Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Karelia Republic; Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic | More than 2 year(s) and 4 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; white collar crime. | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement in a metal cage in court hearings before the Petrozavodsk Town Court starting from the first hearing of 08/02/2020. | 9,750 |
| 6. | 31800/20 16/05/2020 |
Irina Nikolayevna LUNINA 1979 |
11/10/2017 to 24/03/2021 |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 14 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Moscow City Court, 14/11/2019; First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, 23/01/2020; lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012). |
4,100 | |
| 7. | 7688/21 06/01/2021 |
Arslan RUSLAN UULU 1998 |
Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich Moscow |
27/02/2020 – pending | Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 3 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 – Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow 20/10/2020; Moscow City Court 16/11/2020; lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012). |
3,000 |
| 8. | 7828/21 08/01/2021 |
Polina Aleksandrovna DMITRIYENKO 1990 |
Chervonnyy Grigoriy Sergeyevich Moscow |
11/06/2020 – pending | Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than 2 year(s) and 17 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 – Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, 03/09/2020 Moscow City Court, 12/10/2020 lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012). |
2,600 |
| 9. | 7886/21 19/01/2021 |
Islam Abdul-Kadirovich SANGISHIYEV 1986 |
Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka |
28/04/2020 to 11/05/2021 |
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 14 day(s) | Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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. | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow 25/06/2020; Moscow City Court 22/07/2020; lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012). |
1,400 |
| 10. | 11635/21 24/02/2021 |
Sergey Yevgenyevich RYABOV 1980 |
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg |
18/12/2019 to 24/02/2021 |
Supreme Court of Russia, Moscow Regional Court, First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction | 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 7 day(s) | 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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. | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Moscow Regional Court, 13/08/2020; First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, 12/10/2020; lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012). |
1,700 |
| 11. | 19568/21 12/03/2021 |
Rail Nailevich KHAMIDULLIN 1978 |
14/05/2020 – pending | Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic | More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 day(s) | fragility of the reasons employed by the courts | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, 13/08/2020; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 18/09/2020; lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012). |
2,700 |
[i]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply