CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s896457AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:8pt } .sED1A34C5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78B6B604 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sCEE978D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s94BE8574 { width:23.3%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6EB2FE49 { width:9.72%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F2C8502 { width:11.66%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEFD3C373 { width:9.7%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s308EE4CE { width:11.64%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s28E40A44 { width:12.62%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE7D45C42 { width:23.3%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA51CD17C { width:9.72%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s18DABD02 { width:11.66%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sD9C2D58A { width:9.7%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s249B2BAA { width:11.64%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s992778E { width:12.62%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s9951A604 { width:23.3%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8C48A9C9 { width:9.72%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sDBE93548 { width:11.66%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s81DBBA0 { width:9.7%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s1FD68AE7 { width:11.64%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s79DA6424 { width:12.62%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s31289581 { width:124.4pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block }       FORMER FIRST SECTION               CASE OF ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 51445/09)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   24 March 2016       FINAL   12/09/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Zherebin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 March 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   51445/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Pavel Mikhaylovich Zherebin (“the applicant”), on 22 September 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr D. Agranovskiy, a lawyer practising in Elektrostal, Moscow Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 13 November 2012 the Chamber of the First Section of the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government and to give the application priority in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The Court furthermore decided to inform the parties that it was considering the suitability of applying a pilot judgment procedure in the cases (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], 31443/96, §§ 189-194 and the operative part, ECHR 2004-V, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC] no. 35014/97, ECHR   2006-VII, §§ 231-239 and the operative part) and requested the parties’ observations on the matter. Having considered the parties’ observations, the Chamber decided not to apply the pilot judgment procedure. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Tula. 5.     On 9   March 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a flagrant breach of public peace and order, committed in concert by an organised group. The events in question took place in December 2008. 6.     On 10   March 2009 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody during the investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows: “When deciding whether a preventive measure should be imposed, the court takes into consideration whether [the applicant] has been charged with a serious offence which entails a custodial sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment. [The offence in question] was committed against public peace and public order. Further, the court takes into consideration the fact that, at the time of the arrest, [the applicant] did not reside in Moscow, did not reside at his registered address and, according to him, was staying at his friend’s place in the Moscow Region; and that he had applied for two years’ leave of absence from his studies at university. During that period he did not have a permanent place of residence and did not reside at his registered address. [The applicant] is not employed. The source of his income or means of subsistence for his family are not known. Earlier [the applicant] was found liable for administrative offences against public order and public safety. The court also takes into consideration the motive for and the specific circumstances of the offence with which [the applicant] has been charged. The perpetrators used improvised weapons and acted in an organised group during the late hours of the day. Regard being had to the circumstances described above, the court concludes that, if at large, [the applicant] may abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice by, inter alia , putting pressure on [witnesses].” 7.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 10   March 2009. He argued that the District Court had failed to justify its decision to remand him in custody and had not considered the possibility of using a less restrictive preventive measure in his case. He further noted that there was no evidence that he had ever tried to put pressure on witnesses, to interfere with the administration of justice or to abscond. Lastly, he pointed out that he was residing at the address known to the authorities together with his wife, who was pregnant. 8.     On 30   March 2009 the Moscow City Court found the decision of 10   March 2009 justified and upheld it on appeal. 9 .     On 27   April 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 15   June 2009. The court reasoned as follows: “As can be seen from the materials submitted to the court, [the applicant] is charged with a serious offence which carries a custodial sentence of up to seven years. The crime was committed in concert with other persons. Some of them have not been identified by the investigating authorities to date. The others have been arrested. [The applicant] was not residing at his registered address. He does not have a registered address in the Moscow Region. He is unemployed. Under Article   97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a preventive measure can be imposed if there is evidence that a defendant might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice in his case. Neither [the applicant] nor his lawyer presented evidence to show that the existence of such a risk could not be justified. Furthermore, it can be seen from the documents submitted to the court that there is a risk that [the applicant] might engage in unlawful acts as defined in the above-mentioned provision of the law, regard being had to the nature and seriousness of the offence with which he is charged, to the circumstances of the case and of his arrest, and to his character ... Accordingly, the court concludes that the circumstances justifying the [applicant’s] remand in custody have not changed. There is no reason to change or lift the preventive measure imposed earlier. The statements of guarantee submitted by the [applicant’s] lawyer cannot be taken into consideration by the court because they were not submitted to the investigator or presented by the signatories in person. ... Some of the statements are not duly authorised and the court has doubts as to their authenticity.” 10.     On 18 May 2009 the City Court upheld the decision of 27   April 2009 on appeal. 11.     On 29 May 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow scheduled the trial for 10   June 2009. The applicant argued against the extension of his pre-trial detention. He submitted that he was a student, that he was married and that his wife was pregnant. He further pointed out that the investigation in the case had already been completed and that he could not interfere with the administration of justice or put pressure on witnesses. He had no intention of doing so or of absconding. The court ruled that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial. In particular, the court stated as follows: “Having examined the prosecutor’s request to detain [the applicant and two other defendants] pending trial, the court grants it. It discerns no grounds on which to change the preventive measure imposed on the defendants, regard being had to the seriousness of the charges, the factual circumstances and the defendants’ character. In particular, G. and [the applicant] do not have a registered address in Moscow or the Moscow Region. They were not living at their registered address. They are unemployed. The circumstances underlying their remand in custody have not ceased to exist or changed. The fact that the investigation in the criminal case has been completed has no effect to the contrary. Regard being had to the foregoing, the court discerns no grounds on which to change the preventive measure imposed earlier on the defendants and apply a less restrictive measure, including the [applicant’s] release upon a statement of guarantee signed by a surety.” 12.     On 24 June 2009 the applicant asked the District Court for release. He submitted that on 16   June 2009 his wife had given birth to their child. He also relied on the statements of guarantee submitted by his sureties. The court dismissed the applicant’s request noting as follows: “... the court considers that the request cannot be granted. The court discerns no circumstances that would allow it to change the preventive measure imposed on [the applicant], regard being had to the seriousness of the charges, the factual circumstances and his character. In particular, [the applicant] does not have a registered address in Moscow or the Moscow Region. He is unemployed. Nor was [he] residing at his registered address. The reasons justifying the [applicant’s] remand in custody have not ceased to exist or changed. ... the birth of his child has no effect to the contrary and cannot justify the decision to replace [pre-trial detention] with a less restrictive measure, including the [applicant’s] release upon a statement of guarantee signed by a surety.” 13.     On 22 July 2009 the City Court upheld the decision of 29   May 2009 on appeal. 14.     On 28 October 2009 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. 15.     On 22 December 2009 the City Court upheld, in substance, the applicant’s conviction on appeal. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (“the CCrP”), as amended, in force since 1 July 2002 1.     Preventive measures 16.     “Preventive measures” include an undertaking not to leave town, a statement of guarantee, bail, house arrest and remand in custody (Article   98). If necessary, the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear (Article 112). 17.     When deciding on a preventive measure, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “sufficient grounds to believe” that the accused would abscond, reoffend, threaten the witnesses or other parties to the proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice (Article 97). It must also take into account the seriousness of the charges, information on the accused’s character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99). 18 .     Detention may be ordered by a court in respect of a person suspected of or charged with a criminal offence punishable by more than three years’ imprisonment, provided that a less restrictive preventive measure cannot be applied (Article 108 § 1). 2.     Amendments to the CCrP 19 .     Federal Law no.   60-FZ, as of 7   April 2010, provides that an accused charged with financial crimes relating to entrepreneurial activities cannot be remanded in custody unless it can be established that he or she: (1) has no permanent residence in the Russian Federation; (2) has no established identity; (3) has not complied with an earlier preventive measure; or (4) has absconded (section 108   §   1.1). 20.     The said law sets forth new regulations governing bail matters in more detail. It determines the amount of bail, the accused’s eligibility to be released on bail and the procedure for the imposition of bail (section 106). 21.     Federal Law no.   420-FZ, as of 7   December 2011, sets forth in detail the rules governing the imposition of house arrest as a preventive measure. It introduced the possibility of using audio-visual, electronic and other technical means to monitor defendants under house arrest (section 107). 22.     Federal Law no.   434-FZ, as of 29   December 2010, provides for the possibility of replacing detention with a less restrictive preventive measure in the event of the defendant’s developing a serious illness (section 110   §   1.1). 23 .     Federal Law No.   309-FZ, as of 30   December 2012, establishes that detention, as a preventive measure, may be ordered by a court in respect of a person suspected of or charged with a criminal offence punishable by more than three years’ imprisonment (see paragraph 18 above). Prior to that, detention could be imposed on a person suspected of or charged with a criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. B.     Practice of domestic courts Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 24 .     In its Ruling of 27   September 2006 “On the Practice of Imposition of Remand in Custody on Suspects and Defendants”, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated as follows: “It has been established ... , that the courts do not comply in full with the requirements set forth in the rules of criminal procedure governing the imposition of the preventive measure of remand in custody. Nor do they take into consideration the interpretation thereof contained in [the Rulings of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation]. The courts have not always examined in entirety the grounds justifying the necessity to remand suspects or defendants in custody. When granting the [prosecution’s] requests, the judges have confined themselves to a formal reiteration of the grounds for remand in custody set out in Article   97 of the CCrP without citing specific and sufficient facts underlying the court’s finding that the suspect (the defendant) might abscond, re-offend, etc. ... When [remanding the defendant in custody], certain courts have failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Article   99 of the CCrP, in accordance with which, in addition to the seriousness of the charges, [the court] should take into consideration the information on the [defendant’s] character, age and health condition, marital situation, employment and other circumstances. ... The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rules as follows: 1.     The courts should strictly comply with the legislation governing [remand in custody]. They should refrain from a formalistic approach when deciding on the relevant requests, regard being had to the fact that remand in custody is the most restrictive preventive measure ...” 25 .     In Ruling no. 41 of 19 December 2013 “On the Practice of Application by the Courts of Preventive Measures in the Form of Remand in Custody, Bail and House Arrest”, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held as follows: “4.     ... the courts of the Russian Federation may [remand the defendant in custody] only in exceptional circumstances, provided that in addition to the circumstances set out in Article   97 of the CCrP, one of the following circumstances is present: [the defendant] does not have a permanent residence in the Russian Federation; his or her identity has not been established; he or she has been in violation of an earlier preventive measure; he or she has absconded. ... The fact that the defendant does not have a registered address in the Russian Federation may be considered one of the facts confirming that the defendant does not have a permanent residence. However, this fact alone cannot justify the decision to remand the defendant in custody as provided for in Article 108   §   1 of the CCrP. The mere fact that the defendant does not have identity papers cannot be regarded as sufficient to remand him or her in custody as provided for in Article 108   §   2 of the CCrP. 5.     The decision to remand the defendant in custody can be justified only if factual circumstances exist showing that the defendant has a real opportunity of carrying out actions as set out in Article   97 of the CCrP and that the administration of justice would not be possible should a different preventive measure be used. In particular, at the early stage of the criminal proceedings the risk that the defendant might abscond can be justified by the seriousness of the charge and the prospect of a long-term custodial sentence or the fact that the defendant failed to comply with an earlier preventive measure other than remand in custody. The risk that the defendant might flee abroad can be justified if, for instance, he or she has sold his or her property in the Russian Federation or has a source of income abroad, is a holder of foreign nationality, or does not have a permanent address, family or employment in the Russian Federation. The court may conclude that the defendant may continue criminal activities if, in particular, he or she has previously committed a premeditated crime ... The risk that the defendant might threaten a witness or other parties to the proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice can be justified if the defendant, his or her relatives or other persons threatened the witness in the past; or promised to witnesses, ... , or other parties to the proceedings financial or other rewards in exchange for tampering with evidence; or if the defendant stands charged with a criminal offence committed by an organised group ... 6.     The court should take into consideration the circumstances set out in Article   99 of the CCrP, i.e., the seriousness of the charge, information about the defendant’s character, his or her age, health, family status, employment and other facts (for instance, if the defendant committed a crime against members of his or her own family ..., the defendant’s behaviour after committing the offence, in particular, whether he or she confessed, assisted in resolving the criminal case, or made amends for the harm caused by the crime committed). ... 21.     When extending the period of detention, the court should verify that the circumstances set out in Article   97 of the CCrP exist and are confirmed by reliable information and evidence. Furthermore, the court should take into consideration the circumstances set out in Article   99 of the CCrP and other circumstances that could justify such extension. It should also be noted that the circumstances underlying the defendant’s remand in custody may not always be sufficient for the extension of his or her detention. The existence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the remand in custody. However, after a certain lapse of time it will no longer suffice. In such cases, the court must establish whether specific grounds exist that are sufficient for it to extend the defendant’s detention. At the early stages of criminal proceedings, the seriousness of the charges and a possibility of a long-term custodial sentence can justify the defendant’s remand in custody, given that he or she might abscond. However, at later stages, this circumstance alone cannot be seen as sufficient to justify the extension of the detention. The risk that the defendant might interfere with the administration of justice can justify his or her remand in custody at the early stages of the criminal proceedings. However, subsequently the court should examine other relevant circumstances, in particular, the developments in the investigation or trial, the defendant’s character, his or her behaviour prior to and after the arrest, and any information that may justify the finding that the defendant could falsify or destroy evidence or put pressure on parties to the criminal proceedings or otherwise interfere with the investigation or trial.” C.     Statistics concerning pre-trial detention 26 .     The information submitted by the Government and the statistical data available on the website of the Courts Administration Office at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (www.cdep.ru), as regards the application of preventive measures, including remand in custody, house arrest and bail, can be summarised as follows. Prosecution’s request for a preventive measure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (first half) Applications for remand in custody 208,416 165,323 152,028 147,784 146,993 146,354 75,445 Of those, granted 187,793 148,689 135,850 132,923 133,311 133,657 69,025 Applications for extension of pre-trial detention 212,819 185,891 180,315 198,775 206,968 210,286 109,633 Of those, granted 208,760 182,060 176,840 185,234 198,450 207,363 108,218 Applications for house arrest 164 754 1,539 3,030 3,455 3,783 2,449 Of those, granted 146 668 1,346 2,714 3,086 3,333 2,173 House arrest in lieu of another preventive measure n/a n/a n/a 1,731 2,683 2,632 1,518 Applications for bail n/a 764 491 336 238 256 110 Of those, granted 674 629 438 275 198 225 97 Bail in lieu of another preventive measure 598 n/a n/a 398 367 327 102 III.     RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE A.     General recommendations 27 .     On 29 September 2006 the Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation Rec(2006)13 to member States on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it is applied and the provision of safeguards against abuse. It read, in particular, as follows: “ General principles 3. [1]     In view of both the presumption of innocence and the presumption in favour of liberty, the remand in custody of persons suspected of an offence shall be the exception rather than the norm. [2]     There shall not be a mandatory requirement that persons suspected of an offence (or particular classes of such persons) be remanded in custody. [3]     In individual cases, remand in custody shall only be used when strictly necessary and as a measure of last resort; it shall not be used for punitive reasons. 4.     In order to avoid inappropriate use of remand in custody the widest possible range of alternative, less restrictive measures relating to the conduct of a suspected offender shall be made available. 5.     Remand prisoners shall be subject to conditions appropriate to their legal status; this entails the absence of restrictions other than those necessary for the administration of justice, the security of the institution, the safety of prisoners and staff and the protection of the rights of others and in particular the fulfilment of the requirements of the European Prison Rules and the other rules set out in Part III of the present text. II. The use of remand in custody Justification 6.     Remand in custody shall generally be available only in respect of persons suspected of committing offences that are imprisonable. 7.     A person may only be remanded in custody where all of the following four conditions are satisfied: a.     there is reasonable suspicion that he or she committed an offence; and b. there are substantial reasons for believing that, if released, he or she would either (i) abscond, or (ii) commit a serious offence, or (iii) interfere with the course of justice, or (iv) pose a serious threat to public order; and c. there is no possibility of using alternative measures to address the concerns referred to in b .; and d. this is a step taken as part of the criminal justice process. 8. [1]     In order to establish whether the concerns referred to in Rule 7 b . exist, or continue to do so, as well as whether they could be satisfactorily allayed through the use of alternative measures, objective criteria shall be applied by the judicial authorities responsible for determining whether suspected offenders shall be remanded in custody or, where this has already happened, whether such remand shall be extended. [2]     The burden of establishing that a substantial risk exists and that it cannot be allayed shall lie on the prosecution or investigating judge. 9. [1]     The determination of any risk shall be based on the individual circumstances of the case, but particular consideration shall be given to: a.     the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence; b. the penalty likely to be incurred in the event of conviction; c. the age, health, character, antecedents and personal and social circumstances of the person concerned, and in particular his or her community ties; and d. the conduct of the person concerned, especially how he or she has fulfilled any obligations that may have been imposed on him or her in the course of previous criminal proceedings. [2]     The fact that the person concerned is not a national of, or has no other links with, the state where the offence is supposed to have been committed shall not in itself be sufficient to conclude that there is a risk of flight. 10.     Wherever possible remand in custody should be avoided in the case of suspected offenders who have the primary responsibility for the care of infants. 11.     In deciding whether remand in custody shall be continued, it shall be borne in mind that particular evidence which may once have previously made the use of such a measure seem appropriate, or the use of alternative measures seem inappropriate, may be rendered less compelling with the passage of time. 12.     A breach of alternative measures may be subject to a sanction but shall not automatically justify subjecting someone to remand in custody. In such cases the replacement of alternative measures by remand in custody shall require specific motivation. Judicial authorisation 13.     The responsibility for remanding someone in custody, authorising its continuation and imposing alternative measures shall be discharged by a judicial authority. ... Duration 22. [1]     Remand in custody shall only ever be continued so long as all the conditions in Rules 6 and 7 are fulfilled. [2]     In any case its duration shall not exceed, nor normally be disproportionate to, the penalty that may be imposed for the offence concerned. [3]     In no case shall remand in custody breach the right of a detained person to be tried within a reasonable time. 23.     Any specification of a maximum period of remand in custody shall not lead to a failure to consider at regular intervals the actual need for its continuation in the particular circumstances of a given case. 24. [1]     It is the responsibility of the prosecuting authority or the investigating judicial authority to act with due diligence in the conduct of an investigation and to ensure that the existence of matters supporting remand in custody is kept under continuous review. ” 28 .     On 1   October 2015 the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution no.   2077 on Abuse of pre-trial detention in State Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights in which it called on all State Parties to the Convention to: “12.1.     implement measures aimed at reducing pretrial detention, including the following: 12.1.1.     raising awareness among judges and prosecutors of the legal limits placed on pretrial detention by national law and the European Convention on Human Rights and of the negative consequences of pretrial detention on detainees, their families and on society as a whole; 12.1.2. ensuring that decisions on pretrial detention are taken by more senior judges or by collegiate courts and that judges do not suffer negative consequences for refusing pretrial detention in accordance with the law; 12.1.3. ensuring greater equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence, including by allowing defence lawyers unfettered access to detainees, by granting them access to the investigation file ahead of the decision imposing or prolonging pretrial detention, and by providing sufficient funding for legal aid, including for proceedings related to pretrial detention; 12.1.4. taking appropriate action to redress any discriminatory application of the rules governing pretrial detention with regard to foreign nationals, in particular by clarifying that being a foreigner does not per se constitute an increased risk of absconding; 12.2. take appropriate measures to prevent “forum shopping” by prosecutors; 12.3. refrain from using pretrial detention for purposes other than the administration of justice and to release all detainees currently held for any abusive purposes or under any abusive procedure ... .” B.     Pre-trial detention in the Russian Federation 29 .     On 12   February 2007 the Ministers’ Deputies adopted the Memorandum prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on “Detention on remand in the Russian Federation: Measures required to comply with the European Court’s judgments” (CM/Inf/DH(2007)4). The executive summary of the Memorandum stated as follows: “The present Memorandum has been prepared to assist the Committee of Ministers in its supervision of the execution by the Russian Federation of the European Court’s judgments finding repetitive violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on account of lengthy or unlawful detention on remand. These judgments reveal an important structural problem, which is confirmed by the continuous flow of new similar applications to the Court and by the data available at the national level. The Memorandum sums up the efforts made so far by the Russian Federation in order to resolve the problem and highlights further possible measures with a view to a comprehensive solution. The new Code of Criminal procedure in force since July 2002 was a first successful step to bring Russian criminal legislation in line with the Convention requirements. The Russian higher courts subsequently delivered certain leading judgments and issued guidelines to ensure effective implementation of these requirements. Notwithstanding these developments, violations of the Convention continue as a result of longstanding attitudes of judges and prosecutors, and notably of their excessive using pre-trial detention without proper justification. Memorandum suggests some key avenues to be followed by the Russian authorities in their continuing efforts to ensure compliance with the Convention in this area. The proposals are based on the Committee of Ministers’ extensive experience in supervision of implementation of the Court’s judgments and include notably: -   possible changes to the Code of Criminal procedure with a view to clarifying the courts’ obligations at different stages of the proceedings; -   improvement of judicial review of pre-trial detention through more detailed guidelines containing the Convention requirements as set out by the European Court’s case-law; -   continuous in-service training of judges and prosecutors; -   improvement of regulatory framework through appropriate instructions to prosecutors and directors of pre-trial detention facilities and strengthening of their responsibility in this area; -   larger use and further development of alternative preventive measures.” 30.     On 4   March 2010 the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)35 on the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 31 cases against the Russian Federation mainly concerning conditions of detention in remand prisons. It provided, in particular, as follows: “ As regards the number of remand prisoners : Recalling the constant position of the Committee of Ministers that, in view both of presumption of innocence and the presumption in favour of liberty, remand in custody shall be the exception rather than the norm and only a measure of last resort, and that to avoid inappropriate use of remand in custody the widest possible range of alternative, less restrictive measures shall be made available; Noting the repeated statements by the President of the Russian Federation and high-ranked officials, including the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice, that thousands of persons detained on remand – up to 30 % of those currently detained – should not have been deprived of their liberty, being suspected or accused of offences of minor or medium seriousness; Welcoming the unambiguous commitment, renewed at the highest political level, to change this unacceptable situation and to adopt urgent legislative and other measures to that effect; Taking note in this context of legislative initiatives to ensure effective use of alternative preventive measures provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure; Noting further the rulings of the Supreme Court, namely the Ruling of 29 October 2009 reiterating that remand in custody should be a measure of last resort and providing guidelines on the application of alternative preventive measures, Noting that the statistical data provided demonstrates a slight but constant decrease in the overall number of remand prisoners; Further noting that the statistics nonetheless demonstrate wider yet still limited recourse to alternative preventive measures by the Russian courts, prosecutors and investigators; Considering that efforts should be pursued effectively to induce judges, prosecutors and investigators to use detention on remand as a genuinely exceptional measure; ... STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Russian authorities to give priority to reforms aiming at reducing the number of persons detained on remand and to other measures combating the overcrowding of remand facilities by · ensuring that judges, prosecutors and investigators consider and use detention on remand as a solution of last resort and make wider use of alternative preventive measures[.]” 31.     On 8-9   December 2015 at the 1243 rd meeting the Ministers’ Deputies welcomed the new action plan and the measures adopted the Russian authorities in respect of the execution of the Court’s judgments included in the Klyakhin group (application no.   46082/99). As regards general measures, the Deputies: “4. welcomed the efforts made by the Russian authorities aimed at aligning Russian legislation and practice with the Convention requirements under Article 5 of the Convention and the positive statistics presented demonstrating a considerable reduction of recourse to detention on remand and an increased use of alternative measures; 5. noted with satisfaction the legislative measures adopted and the important contributions made by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in order to overcome the problems raised in this group and notably that these measures are capable of preventing similar violations.” C.     Pre-trial detention in Poland 32.     On 6   June 2007 the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)75 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 44 cases against Poland relating to the excessive length of detention on remand. Noting that the length of pre-trial detention constituted a systemic problem in Poland, the Committee encouraged the Polish authorities: “-   to continue to examine and adopt further measures to reduce the length of detention on remand, including possible legislative measures and the change of courts’ practice in this respect, to be in line with the requirements set out in the Convention and the European Court’s case-law; and in particular -   to take appropriate awareness-raising measures with regard to the authorities involved in the use of detention on remand as a preventive measure, including judges of criminal courts and prosecutors; -   to encourage domestic courts and prosecutors to consider the use of other preventive measures provided in domestic legislation, such as release on bail, obligation to report to the police or prohibition on leaving the country; -   to establish a clear and efficient mechanism for evaluating the trend concerning the length of detention on remand[.]” 33.     On 3   February 2009 the Court adopted a judgment in the case of Kauczor v. Poland (no. 45219/06), in which it found that for many years, at least as recently as in 2007, numerous cases had demonstrated that the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Poland revealed a structural problem consisting of “a practice that [was] incompatible with the Convention” (see Kauczor v. Poland , no. 45219/06, §   60, 3 February 2009). 34.     Following the Interim Resolution and the Kauczor judgment, the Polish authorities implemented a number of measures aimed at reducing the length of pre-trial detention. The overview of those measures was provided in the action report submitted by the Polish authorities to the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers on 23   October 2014 (DH-DD(2014)1312). The executive summary of the report read, as regards the overview of the general measures, as follows (original English): “ ... As the main source of the violations in these cases was the practice of the domestic courts, the measures taken have centred on changing that practice, so that the domestic courts take full account of the European Court’s jurisprudence. This has been achieved through extensive training for judges and prosecutors supported by provision of freely available publications of the Court’s case-law and regular updates on jurisprudence. The authorities have also put in place an extensive monitoring system to supervise courts’ use of detention on remand proceedings. In addition, whilst there were already a number of provisions in the law which provided alternatives to detention on remand, these have been supplemented by further amendments that limit the grounds for detention on remand; ensure better diligence on the presentation of the grounds to the court; limit maximum detention periods; ensure that excessive delay in detention on remand at all levels of jurisdiction is taken into account; and provide an appeal mechanism against certain types of decisions to extend pre-trial detention. Some of these amendments were made following judgments of the Constitutional Court, which applied the Strasbourg Court’s jurisprudence in key cases concerning detention on remand. The overall impact of these measures can be clearly seen in the statistics presented in part III. of this report. These show a very significant reduction in the use of pre-trial detention and a decrease in the number of individuals held in pre-trial detention. They also show a corresponding general increase in use of measures alternative to detention in recent years. In general, a tendency for a less frequent use of all the preventive measures (both custodial and non-custodial) in criminal proceedings seems to be well consolidated.” 35.     On 4   December 2014 the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)268 on execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 173 cases against Poland, in which it was established that the Polish Government had complied with their obligations under Article   46 of the Convention. THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S UNILATERAL DECLARATION 36.     On 27 April 2015 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration whereby they acknowledged that the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 10   March to 28 October 2009 had been in contravention of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention and proposed to pay EUR   800 to the applicant by way of just satisfaction. They further asked the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article   37   §   1   (c). 37.     On 15 June 2015 the applicant rejected the Government’s proposal. He considered that the amount proposed by the Government as just satisfaction was not commensurate with his anguish and suffering sustained as a result of the pre-trial detention and asked the Court to continue the examination of his case. 38.     The Court reiterates that it may be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government, even if th