Last Updated on September 15, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TIMOKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 6510/21 and 2 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 Timokhin 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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They 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 § 4 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained of the deficiencies in the 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 case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154‑58, 22 May 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 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. 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) and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, as regards detention in a cage or a glass cabin during court hearings; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101‑11, 27 November 2012, concerning lengthy pre-trial detention; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, related to inadequate conditions of transport.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in the 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);
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 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
First-instance court and date of detention order | Appeal instance court and date of decision | Procedural deficiencies | 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. | 6510/21 30/12/2020 |
Aleksey Eduardovich TIMOKHIN 1989 |
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 23/09/2020 Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021 Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 |
Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, 28/10/2020 Second Appellate Court, 14/10/2021 Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 |
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 – placement in a glass cabin together with 9 other co-defendants with less than 0,6 sq.m. of personal space; Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – the applicant was transported in poor conditions 425 times. Despite the short duration of transport (1-1,5 hours), the applicant was handcuffed, and his personal space was less than 0,25 sq.m.; Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – The applicant has been detained on multiple charges of, inter alia, extortion, participation in activities of an organised crime group, infliction of bodily harm, since 26/05/2015. The relevant decisions were taken by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court and Second Appeal Court. Specific defects: failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, collective detention orders; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and while held in a glass cabin in the courtroom |
9,750 |
| 2. | 33424/21 01/06/2021 |
Robert Rashidovich ZAKIROV 1991 |
Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, 29/04/2021 | Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, 03/06/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – since 06/03/2018 – pending Pestrechinskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, Forth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction. Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. |
4,900 |
| 3. | 37247/21 29/06/2021 |
Yuriy Petrovich VAKHRUSHEV 1962 |
Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 05/03/2021 | Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 08/04/2021 | 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 – Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, since 13/11/2020 (the proceedings are pending); Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings. |
8,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply