THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF KIM AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 10682\/18 and 23 others – see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 April 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Kim 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 11 March 2021,<\/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 about 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 APPLICATION No. 10682\/18 UNDER ARTICLE 37 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no.\u00a010682\/18 whereby they acknowledged that on several occasions during the period from 4\u00a0June to 29\u00a0August 2017, the applicant had been transported, to and from the courthouse, in conditions incompatible with the requirements of Article\u00a03 of the Convention, and that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint about the inadequate conditions of transport in violation of Article\u00a013 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the applicationout of the list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention. The said amount 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 this amount within the above\u2011mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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.<\/p>\n 7. The applicant rejected the Government\u2019s proposal.<\/p>\n 8. 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 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, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).<\/p>\n 9. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, 22 May 2012).<\/p>\n 10. 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 relevant part of the application (Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c)).<\/p>\n 11. In the light of the above considerations, the Court is 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 this part (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 12. 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 13. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out application no.\u00a010682\/18 in the part concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy regarding that complaint.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 14. 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 A. Application no.\u00a013641\/18 in the part concerning the period of detention from 29\u00a0December 2016 to 12\u00a0April 2017<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. As regards application no.\u00a013641\/18 in the part concerning the period of the applicant\u2019s detention from 29\u00a0December 2016 to 12\u00a0April\u00a02017 and relying on the documents submitted by the parties, the Court notes that on 29\u00a0December 2016 the applicant was found guilty of organisation of illegal gambling and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He subsequently served his prison sentence until 12\u00a0April 2017 when his conviction was quashed by the appellate court and the case was remitted for re-trial. Accordingly, the period of the applicant\u2019s detention from 29\u00a0December 2016 to 12\u00a0April\u00a02017 falls within the ambit of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 (a) of the Convention.<\/p>\n 16. In this connection the Court reiterates that Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention does not apply to situations amounting to \u201clawful detention after conviction by a competent court\u201d within the meaning of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) of the Convention (see, for example, Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184\/09, \u00a7\u00a0157, 11\u00a0December 2014). It follows that this part of the complaint is incompatible rationemateriae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04.<\/p>\n B. The remaining applications including application no.\u00a013641\/18 in the part concerning the period of detention from 12\u00a0April 2017 to 17\u00a0April 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. 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 110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 41-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n 18. In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461\/10, 27\u00a0November\u00a02012, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 19. 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 20. 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 21. In some applications the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well\u2011established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnevv.\u00a0Russia [GC], nos. 32541\/08 and 43441\/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages during court hearings; and Idalov v.\u00a0Russia [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters and conditions of detention during transport).<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 22. In application no.\u00a019967\/19, the applicant also complained under Articles\u00a03 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.<\/p>\n 23. The Court has examined these complaints and finds that the applicant should avail himself of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743\/17 and 16 others, 17\u00a0March 2020).<\/p>\n 24. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 25. 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 26. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (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.<\/p>\n 27. 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 application no.\u00a010682\/18 in the part concerning the conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy in this regard out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3. 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,admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of application no.\u00a019967\/19 inadmissible;<\/p>\n 4. 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 5. 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 the appended table);<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 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 \u00a0Darian Pavli ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPeeter Roosma, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\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