Last Updated on October 14, 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 KOKUNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 54172/20 and 6 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 Kokunovand 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 Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy 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 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 (taking also into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022)) 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. Some 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) and YaroslavBelousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 126, 4 October 2016, as regards detention in a metal cage and a glass cabin during the court hearings; and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 58-84, 26 June 2018, as regards unrecorded detention.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about their placement in a metal cage or glass cabin in the courtrooms. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).
13. In applications nos. 54172/20 and 5214/21 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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
15. 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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 detentionand the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage or glass cabin in courtrooms, and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 54172/20 and 5214/21 as inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation 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 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)[1] |
| 1. | 54172/20
09/12/2020 |
Igor Vladimirovich KOKUNOV
1964 |
Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya
Strasbourg |
09/06/2020 to
13/08/2021 |
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Noginsk Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Region Court | 1 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 5 day(s)
|
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest on 09/06/2020 at 10:40 a.m. following the search in the house, while the arrest record was only drawn up on the same day at 9:05 p.m. – unacknowledged detention during those hours;
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – 04/08/2020-05/08/2020 (Noginsk Town Court of Moscow Region), 07/12/2020 (Moscow City Court). |
9,750 |
| 2. | 55562/20
20/11/2020 |
Vasiliy Vasilyevich CHEPKOV
1991 |
Igor YuryevichSayevets
Moscow |
07/03/2020 to
05/10/2021 |
Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court | 1 year(s) and
6 month(s) and 29 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
|
1,700 | |
| 3. | 2220/21
09/12/2020 |
Darya Vladimirovna POLYUDOVA
1989 |
Leonid AlekseyevichSolovyev
Moscow |
15/01/2020
to 31/05/2021 |
Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and
4 month(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;failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – On 10/03/2020 the Meshchanskiy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 13/03/2020 the applicant appealed. On 14/05/2020 the Moscow City Court held the appeal hearing. | 2,000 |
| 4. | 2064/21
15/12/2020 |
Konstantin Vladimirovich PANCHUK
1983 |
Vera Velimirovna
Goncharova Moscow |
29/05/2020
pending |
Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region; Kaluga Regional Court | More than 2 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 14 day(s)
|
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;fragility of the reasons employed by the courts | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant was arrested on 29/05/2020 at 1:29 p.m., the police report was done on 30/05/2020 at
10:20 p.m., during this time he was detained in police custody;
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – hearing in the Kaluzhskiy District Court of Kaluga Region, placement in a number of hearings; proceedings are still pending. |
9,750 |
| 5. | 5214/21
04/01/2021 |
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GROMOVOY
1983 |
AllaIgorevnaDunayeva
Chelyabinsk |
27/07/2020
pending |
Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court | More than 2 year(s) and
16 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 | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – Unrecorded detention from 2 p.m. on 27/07/2020 to 6 p.m. on 28/07/2020. The detention record was drawn at 6 p.m. on 28/07/2020 only,
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Placement in a metal cage during the hearings in Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk and Chelyabinsk Regional Court on since 29/07/2020 – proceedings are still pending (placed in a cage in a remand prison; participated by video link);
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the detention orders delivered by the Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk on 04/09/2020 were reviewed on appeal by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 26/10/2020; belated review of the decision refusing to release the applicant of 24/12/2020 – was reviewed on appeal only on 03/06/2021. |
9,750 |
| 6. | 7396/21
29/12/2020 |
MakhyaddinMamedogly AGAYEV
1960 |
Dmitriy AleksandrovichUstyuzhaninov
St Petersburg |
18/07/2017 to
06/12/2021 |
Kalininskiy and Moscow District Courts of St Petersburg/St Petersburg City Court, 2nd Court of Appeal St. Petersburg | 4 year(s) and
4 month(s) and 19 day(s)
|
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;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;collective detention orders;use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
|
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – detention in a glass cabin with other inmates, overcrowding (0.79 m² of personal space), one inmate was allegedly Covid infected / from 18/07/2017 to 23/12/2020 / Kalininskiy District Court and St. Petersburg City Court. | 9,750 |
| 7. | 16201/21
09/03/2021 |
Sergey Alekseyevich BONDARENKO
1990 |
Yuriy Nikolayevich Logvinov
Rostov-on-Don |
29/08/2020 to
21/12/2021 |
LeninskiyDistric Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court | 1 year(s) and
3 month(s) and 23 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;fragility of the reasons employed by the courts | 1,400 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply