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. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also made additional complaints (see below) stemming from the same set of facts.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Shaforost v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Peeter Roosma, President, Having deliberated in private on 10 March 2022,<\/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 relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also made additional complaints (see below) stemming from the same set of facts.<\/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 applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He 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 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 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.<\/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 applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n 10. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. other ALLEGED VIOLATIONs under well-established case-law<\/p>\n 11. The applicant also complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention (see the appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012).<\/p>\n 12. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. 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 and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299\/07, 19 December 2013, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 78-80, 11 July 2017, Aybo\u011fa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 113-15, 18 February 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 87-89, 19 January 2016 and Karaosmanoglu and \u00d6zden v. Turkey, no. 4807\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 89-91, 17 June 2014) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum 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 there has been a violation of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a73 of the Convention on account of an excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 14 April 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Peeter Roosma _________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF SHAFOROST v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 1797\/20 and 26518\/20)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 April 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n