THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF PODKORYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 9867\/06 and 9 others \u2013 see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 January 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Podkorytovand 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 17 December 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. The Government\u2019s request to strike out some APPLICATIONS under Article 37\u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/p>\n A. Applications nos. 9867\/06 and 71475\/17<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants in applications nos. 9867\/06 and 71475\/17 complained about their poor conditions of pre-trial detention and the lack of an effective remedy therefor.<\/p>\n 7. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in these two applications with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to inadequate conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention and of Article 13 of the Convention related to lack of an effective remedy to complain about such conditions. They offered to pay the applicants the sums indicated in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court\u2019s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases in the part related to the poor conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention.<\/p>\n 8. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declaration.<\/p>\n 9. The Court finds that, following the applicants\u2019 express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, this part of the applications should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications in this part.<\/p>\n 10. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike applications nos.\u00a09867\/06 and 71475\/17 out of the list in the part covered by the friendly settlement.<\/p>\n B. Application no. 77647\/17<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The Government also submitted a unilateral declaration in case no.\u00a077647\/17, covering the applicant\u2019s complaints about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and a part of his complaints under Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a04 about excessive length of judicial review of detention, acknowledging violations of the Convention in this respect and offering to pay the applicant 3,500\u00a0euros (EUR), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount to him. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declarations.<\/p>\n 12. The Court observes that Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n \u201c… for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application\u201d.<\/p>\n 13. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v.\u00a0Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2003\u2011VI).<\/p>\n 14. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention and lack of speedy review of the detention matters (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 42525\/07 and 60800\/08, 10 January 2012, and Idalov v.\u00a0Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, 22 May 2012).<\/p>\n 15. Noting the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the abovementioned part (Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c)). It is further satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in the relevant part (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 16. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4 March 2008).<\/p>\n 17. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike application no.\u00a077647\/17 in the part covered by the Government\u2019s unilateral declaration out of the list of cases.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 18. 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 19. 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 20. In the leading case of Dirdizov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, 27\u00a0November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 21. 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 22. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 23. 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\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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/0322 May 2012, related to various deficiencies, including lack of speediness, in judicial examination of detention matters; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255\/10 and 5\u00a0others, 9 April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees; Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257\/12, 12 December 2017, Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988\/07, 13 December 2016, and Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673\/03, 12 June 2012, concerning unfair court proceedings in view of the lack of practical opportunities to adduce evidence in support of applicant\u2019s version of events, including by questioning defence witnesses, or given the court\u2019s failure to address the decisive argument and to motivate the decision accordingly; Svinarenko and Slyadnevv. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a032541\/08 and 43441\/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to placement in a metal cage during court hearings; and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971\/06, 25\u00a0October 2007, concerning lack of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right guaranteed by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 24. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 25. The applicants in applications nos. 23804\/10 and 25066\/10 raised a number of additional complaints under various Convention provisions all related to alleged deficiencies and outcome of the criminal proceedings against them. In this connection, the Court reiterates its finding that the fairness of the judicial proceedings against the applicants was undermined by the limitations imposed on the rights of the defence by the absence of an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their version of events, in particular to question the main defence witness, as well as the courts\u2019 failure to address the important argument raised by the defence in relation to the expiration of the statutory limitation period. It therefore declares the remaining complaints related to the criminal proceedings raised in applications nos. 23804\/10 and 25066\/10 admissible but considers it unnecessary to examine them separately (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no.\u00a041461\/02, \u00a7 107, 24 July 2008).<\/p>\n 26. The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints raised in the applications listed in the appended table, as well as the Government\u2019s argument raised in respect of application no. 23804\/10 that the applicant did not, at any point in the proceedings before the Court, complain about her placement in a metal cage in court hearings, 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 27. 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 28. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a055299\/07, 19\u00a0December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It therefore dismisses the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction raised by some of the applicants.<\/p>\n 29. 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. Decides to strike applications nos. 9867\/06 and 71475\/17 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and lack of an effective remedy to complain about it, as specified in the Government\u2019s unilateral declarations;<\/p>\n 3. Takes note of the terms of the Government\u2019s declaration in respect of application no. 77647\/17, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n 4. Decides to strike application no. 77647\/17 in the part covered by the unilateral declaration out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention;<\/p>\n 5. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detentionand the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, as well as the complaints related to various deficiencies in the course of and outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicants in applications nos.\u00a023804\/10 and 25066\/10 admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n 6. 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 7. 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 8. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints about the deficiencies and outcome of the criminal proceedings, raised by the applicants in applications nos. 23804\/10 and 25066\/10;<\/p>\n 9. 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 10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 January 2021, 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX
\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\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
\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n