CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 juillet 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .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 } .sD5195560 { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD8737946 { width:4.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3B9B45E1 { width:177.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A253A10 { width:190.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAE0F63AC { width:4.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB8F0A73D { width:10.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD329AE83 { width:16.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8DB3563B { width:13.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s5A44712E { width:9.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94BB752A { width:9.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37DB148A { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s77A46D21 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sA4D82680 { width:4.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE6666F77 { width:10.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8A375CB { width:16.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F53E219 { width:13.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4992E36A { width:9.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6C4E367F { width:9.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4629D69F { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s183E9B22 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }         THIRD SECTION       CASE OF KHAYBULLAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 24787/05, 25245/07, 22334/08, 23795/08, 41202/08 and 4045/09 )                     JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   21 July 2016       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khaybullayeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     THE GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 35 OF THE CONVENTION (EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES) 6.     In some cases the Government claimed that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies available to them before and after the adoption of the pilot judgement Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no.   33509/04, ECHR 2009). 7.     As regards the domestic remedies existing prior to the adoption of the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its previous finding that at the time when the applicants brought their applications to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings (see Borzhonov v. Russia , no. 18274/04, §§ 36, 22 January 2009). 8.     As regards the domestic remedy introduced in response to the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its position that it would be unfair to request the applicants whose cases have already been pending for many years in the domestic system and who have come to seek relief at the Court to bring again their claims before domestic tribunals (see, for similar reasoning, Fateyenkov and Others v. Russia , no. 44099/04 et   al.,   18   February 2016, with further references). In line with this principle, the Court decides to proceed with the examination of the present cases (see, mutatis mutandis , Utyuzhnikova v. Russia , no. 25957/03, §§ 48-52, 7   October 2010; compare with Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no.   26716/09, § 32, 23 September 2010) and, accordingly, dismisses the Government’s non-exhaustion objection. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   6   §   1 “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 10.     The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v.   France [GC], no.   25444/94, §   67, ECHR   1999 ‑ II, and Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII). 11.     In the leading case of Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, 2   March 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 12.     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 as to 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 proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 15.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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   34 and   35 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. 16.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If 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.” 18.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kulida v. Russia, no. 44049/09, 17 June 2014, Dimov v. Russia, no. 7427/06, 23 September 2014 and Skrylev and Others v.   Russia, no.   15754/06, 15 April 2014), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 19.     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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings admissible,   and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;   4.     Holds (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; (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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 July 2016, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     24787/05 19/05/2005 Ragimat Khaybullayevna KHAYBULLAYEVA       02/10/2000     05/02/2004   01/10/2002     29/03/2006   2 year(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 25 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,250     25245/07 28/04/2007 Mikhail Mikhaylovich LITVINOV 01/01/1954 Liptser Yelena Lvovna Moscow 23/08/1999   02/11/2006   7 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 11 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   3,000     22334/08 11/03/2008 Aleksandr Anatolyevich SAVVIN 31/01/1962     05/05/2004   02/06/2008   4 year(s) and 29 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   1,300     23795/08 09/04/2008 Aleksey Vladimirovich ZAVYALOV 30/04/1957 Davydov Petr Alekseyevich Astrakhan 12/02/2001   25/10/2007   6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   3,000     41202/08 11/06/2008 Igor Dmitriyevich BURTASOV 07/03/1969 Dalekorey Maksim Vasilyevich Naberezhnyye Chelny 27/09/2001   12/12/2007   6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   2,500     4045/09 26/12/2008 Vadim Vladimirovich TUGOLUKOV 04/05/1947 Karpukhin Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Lyubertsy 03/12/2004   28/08/2010   5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 26 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   2,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.