CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION                   CASE OF MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 54929/09)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   11 October 2016         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Mandrykin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 54929/09) 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 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Mandrykin (“the applicant”), on 7 September 2009. 2.     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 1 October 2014 the complaint concerning the length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1951 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Irkutsk. 5.     On 14 May 2008 the applicant was arrested. On an unspecified date he was charged with three counts of pimping and pandering, extortion and illegal keeping of firearms. The court remanded him in custody. 6.     On 5 March 2009 he was committed for trial before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk. 7.     On 3 August 2009 the District Court extended his pre-trial detention on the ground that the circumstances of the case had not changed since the applicant’s arrest, he was accused of a serious crime, did not live at his domicile, hence he could abscond, threaten witnesses and interfere with the investigation. 8.     On 26 November 2009 and 2 March 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention referring to the above grounds and stating that the victims of his crimes were minors. The court also took into account the applicant’s character, his state of health and age. 9.     The applicant’s appeals against the detention orders were rejected. 10.     On 29 March 2010 the District Court convicted him as charged. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been excessively long and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Article 5 § 3 provides as follows: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (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.” 12.     The Government acknowledged that the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 14 May 2008 and 17 March 2010 had been incompatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. However they argued that the Court should not take into consideration the period of pre-trial detention following the communication of the applicant’s complaint on 17 March 2010, as the applicant had failed to inform the Court about developments in his criminal case. In their opinion, once the case had been communicated, its scope had been defined and could not be changed. 13.     The applicant did not comment. A.     Admissibility 1.     The applicant’s failure to inform about developments in his case 14.     The present case concerns the allegedly excessive duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. By lodging his application with the Court, the applicant complained about a situation in which he had already been for some time. In these circumstances, any subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings against him would not have affected the core of the matter underlying his complaint under the Convention (see Kalinin v.   Russia [Committee], no. 54749/12, §§ 18-21, 19 February 2015). 15.     Accordingly, the Court is unable to find that the applicant’s failure to submit further information concerning his pre-trial detention following the communication might have had an impact on the Court’s judgment or have prevented it from ruling on the case. It finds the Government’s submission without merit and dismisses it. 2.     Period of pre-trial detention 16.     According to the Court’s case-law, the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 ends with the applicant’s release or his or her conviction by the first-instance court (see Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 112, 22 May 2012, Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, §§ 145-147, ECHR 2000‑IV). 17.     In the instant case the applicant was arrested on 14 May 2008 and convicted on 29 March 2010. His pre-trial detention therefore lasted one year, ten months, and fifteen days. 18.     Having regard to the above, the Court finds that it is competent to examine the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 14 May 2008 and 29   March 2010. The complaint concerning this period is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 19.     The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant’s detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and merely using stereotypical formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v.   Russia , no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia , no.   28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v.   Russia , no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia , no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v.   Russia , no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia , no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia , no.   5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia , no. 67413/01, 1   April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia , no.   44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia , no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia , no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia , no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012). 20.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the domestic courts failed to address the applicant’s personal situation and grounded their decisions on stereotyped formula. The Court considers that the authorities extended the applicant’s detention on grounds which, although “relevant”, cannot be regarded as “sufficient”. In these circumstances it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with “special diligence”. 21.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. II.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     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.” 23.     The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Declares the complaint concerning the excessive duration of pre-trial detention admissible;   2.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President