Last Updated on October 14, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the length of their pre-trial detention and about the domestic courts’ failure to explain the reasons for inapplicability of Article 108 § 1.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code to them.This provision prohibits the remanding in custody of persons suspected of accused of certain economic crimes, individual entrepreneurs or members of company management bodies in certain cases. Furthermore, some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ULANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2376/20 and 4 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ulaninand Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and ViktoriyaMaradudina,Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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 length of their pre-trial detention and about the domestic courts’ failure to explain the reasons for inapplicability of Article 108 § 1.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code to them.This provision prohibits the remanding in custody of persons suspected of accused of certain economic crimes, individual entrepreneurs or members of company management bodies in certain cases. Furthermore, 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 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about their allegedly unjustified pre-trial detention and its unreasonable length. Their complaints fall to be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Rubtsov and Balayan v. Russia, nos. 33707/14 and 3762/15, §§ 34-37, 10 April 2018), 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 has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention. In Rubtsov and Balayan, cited above, the Court reiterated these findings in respect of persons who claimed that by virtue of Article 108 § 1.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code they should have been shielded from detention on remand. The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 in that case on account of the domestic courts’ failure to provide explanations for inapplicability of the above provision with reference to specific facts of the 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 case the authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicants’ lengthy pre-trial detention and inapplicability of Article 108 § 1.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code to them.
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. 2376/20 and 18099/21, 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.
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, 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 and rejects the applicants’ remaining claims for just satisfaction.
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 § 3 of the Convention on account of unjustified and lengthy 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.
6. Rejects the applicants’ remaining claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 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. | 2376/20
10/12/2019 |
Sergey Yevgenyevich ULANIN
1963 |
KarinnaAkopovna Moskalenko
Strasbourg |
16/05/2019 – pending | Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | More than3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 13 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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; economic crime; collective detention orders | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order of 17/05/2019 was upheld on appeal on 10/06/2019; decision on extension of detention of 18/06/2019 was upheld on appeal on 08/07/2019; decision on extension of detention of 17/09/2019 was upheld on appeal on 15/10/2019. | 3,800 |
| 2. | 11599/20
25/02/2020 |
Aleksey Vladimirovich POLUNIN
1976 |
Vyacheslav SergeyevichZinovyev
Chekhov |
15/08/2019 – pending | Klin Town Court of the Moscow Region | More than2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 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; economic crime | 3,000 | |
| 3. | 48755/20
11/10/2020 |
Aleksandr Viktorovich POZDNYAKOV
1960 |
Roman EduardovichKobylin
Moscow |
25/10/2017 to
21/12/2020 |
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow | 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 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 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; economic crime | 3,200 | |
| 4. | 9457/21
09/02/2021 |
Aleksandr Pavlovich KOROLEV
1977 |
FilippValeryevichBagryanskiy
Vladimir |
25/11/2020 – pending | Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir | More than1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and4 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; economic crime | 1,900 | |
| 5. | 18099/21
29/03/2021 |
Andrey Gennadyevich BORDUNOV
1968 |
Aleksandr ValeryevichBarakin
Moscow |
16/11/2020 – pending | Tverskoy District Court of Moscow | More than1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 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; economic crime | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order of 16/11/2020 was upheld on appeal on 14/12/2020 (26 days); decision on extension of detention of 28/12/2020 was upheld on appeal on 15/02/2021 (47 days). | 1,900
|
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply