The applicants complained about deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF KATASONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 48884/19 and 5 others – see appended list)
15 September 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Katasonov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
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:
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.
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained about deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
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 § 4 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 4
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to review of pre-trial detention guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 251-56, 4 December 2018, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 128-31, 15 December 2016).
8. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154‑58, 161‑65, 22 May 2012, and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 109‑15, 25 October 2007, 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 applicants were deprived of an effective review of their pre-trial detention.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 48884/19, 6850/20, 39661/20, 9992/21 and 14893/21, 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards the detention in a cage during court hearings; 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; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention; and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 32‑57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in detention.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 48884/19, 11880/20 and 9992/21, 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, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78‑80, 11 July 2017), 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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of 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. 48884/19, 11880/20 and 9992/21 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of 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);
(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
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
Date of introduction
Year of birth
|Representative’s name and location||First-instance court and date of detention order||Appeal instance court and date of decision||Procedural deficiencies||Other complaints under well-established
|Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
|Aleksandr Igorevich KATASONOV
|Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg
|St Petersburg City Court
|lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)||Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the St Petersburg City Court on 06/03/2019||8,000|
|Aleksey Sergeyevich NIKOLAYEV
|Dolgoprudnyy Town Court of the Moscow Region
|Moscow Regional Court
|lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)||Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the Dolgoprudnyy Town Court of the Moscow Region,
from 23/07/2019 to 31/07/2020,
judgment date – 31/07/2020
|Vladislav Igorevich PARSHIN
|Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
|Moscow Regional Court
Zhukovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region 17/09/2020
|Moscow Regional Court
Moscow Regional Court
|lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)||500|
|Azat Fanisovich MIFTAKHOV
|Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna
|Moscow City Court,
|First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction
|Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 07/02/2019 to 18/01/2021, Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction; 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||2,500|
|Vadim Valeryevich ANIKEYEV
|Arkhangelsk Regional Court
|Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction
|Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Arkhangelsk Regional Court; Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction from 25/03/2020 to 04/08/2020;
Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – no long-term visits and physical contact with family for 7 years;
Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy against refusals of family visits
|Aleksandr Borisovich DOROGOV
|Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 28/07/2020||Moscow City Court
|lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012), the applicant’s absence from the first-instance hearing (Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 109‑15, 25 October 2007)||Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention||500|
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.