THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF MALYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 9209\/11 and 8 others – see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 December 2020<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Malyshev and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03<\/p>\n \u201c3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kud\u0142a v.\u00a0Poland [GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7\u00a0110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v.\u00a0the United Kingdom [GC], no.\u00a0543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a041-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n 8. In the leading case of Dirdizov\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 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 length of the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 11. In applications nos.\u00a09209\/11, 23736\/17, 69128\/17 and 24901\/18, 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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), concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage during court hearings; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, 22 May 2012, related to lack of speedy review of detention matters; Khodorkovskiy v.\u00a0Russia, no. 5829\/04, 31 May 2011, and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820\/01, ECHR 2006\u2011III (extracts), regarding lack of legal assistance in detention hearings.<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 12. In some applications the applicants also complained under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention about excessively lengthy detention in violation of domestic law. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications with regard to Article 5 of the Convention. It thus considers that the applicants\u2019 complaints are admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Pastukhov\u00a0and Yelagin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a055299\/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 15. The Court 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n 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);<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention raised in some applications;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three\u00a0months, 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;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three\u00a0months 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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Liv Tigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPeeter Roosma, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<\/strong>
\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n