Last Updated on October 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PYZH AND DOBROVOLSKIY v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 20285/21 and 28054/21 – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pyzhand Dobrovolskiyv. 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, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 October 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 § 4of the Convention
6. The applicants complainedof 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 reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4).
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 appeal proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
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), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, as regards lengthy pre-trial detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport; andGorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, as regards video surveillance in prison.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant in application no. 28054/21 further complained about detention in a glass cabin during the court hearings and lack of effective remedies in this connection. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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 the proceedings for review of detention matters and other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the appended table below) admissible and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints about detention in a glass cabin during the court hearings and lack of effective remedies in this connection;
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 the 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 27 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 § 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
|
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 case-law |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 20285/21
16/03/2021 |
Andrey Eduardovich PYZH
1984 |
Svetlana NikolayevnaBayturina
Moscow |
Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, 06/08/2020
Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, 01/10/2020
Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow, 30/11/2020 |
Moscow City Court, 17/09/2020
Moscow City Court, 19/11/2020
Moscow City Court, 14/01/2021 |
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 – from 05/08/2020 – pending; 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint | 2,500 |
| 2. | 28054/21
19/04/2021 |
Valentin Yevgenyevich DOBROVOLSKIY
1987 |
|
St Petersburg City Court, 24/02/2021
(appeal lodged on 26/02/2021)
|
Second Appellate Court, 01/04/2021 | 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 – in the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg and the St Petersburg City Court since 01/03/2020.
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, assembly cell from 28/02/2020 to 24/02/2021, 0.5 sq. m., applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell. Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Leningrad Region, 28/02/2020 – ongoing, opposite-sex operators.
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 8 complaints. |
9,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply