CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s460B86C9 { width:198.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 2091/11 Igor Yuryevich ELKSNIT against Russia and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     The locus standi issue for application no.   34815/14 The applicant, Mr Khamkhoyev, (application no.   34815/14) died while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s mother, Ms   Y.   Khamkhoyeva, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government did not object to that request. In the present case, the Court considers that apart from explicitly expressing her wish to do so, the applicant’s mother has a sufficient legitimate interest in pursuing the proceedings on behalf of her late son, given the nature of the complaints brought by Mr Khamkhoyev (see Vaščenkovs v. Latvia , no. 30795/12, §§ 25-30, 15 December 2016; Sergey Denisov and Others v. Russia , nos. 1985/05, 18579/07, 21748/07, 21954/07 and 20922/08, §§ 73-75, 19 April 2016). Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Y.   Khamkhoyeva has standing to   continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 34815/14 on   behalf of her late son. C.     Complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article 5 § 3 “3.     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.” 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 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-X, with further references). 1.     Applications nos. 2091/11 and 13973/12 With respect to applications nos. 2091/11 and 13973/12, the Court notes the relatively short duration of the applicants’ pre-trial detention. It further observes that while extending the applicants’ detention the domestic courts had relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated violent sexual offences against minors, the particular vulnerability of the victims, the complexity of the criminal cases against the applicants and the existence of a serious risk of their absconding or interfering with justice, confirmed, inter alia , by the pattern of their behavior or psychological condition (see Rydz v. Poland , no. 13167/02, 18   December 2007). The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicants were liable to obstruct justice, to re-offend or abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures, but found them to be inadequate. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ continued detention. The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia , no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v.   Russia , no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia , no. 57319/10, 18   December 2012 and Isayev v. Russia , no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Application no. 7428/12 The Court notes that in application no. 7428/12 the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention ended on 9 September 2011. The applicant only introduced his complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on 13   June 2012. Accordingly, it follows that the application should be rejected as having been lodged out of time in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 3.     Application no. 34815/14 With respect to application no. 34815/14 the Court observes that the applicant’s pre-trial detention lasted from 18 March 2012 to 29 September 2014. The most recent appeal filed by the applicant against a detention order was examined by the Russian court on 24   September 2013. The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 9 April 2014, which is more than six months after the most recent appeal decision upholding his detention. Consequently, the complaint about the detention period covered by the decisions issued before 24   September 2013 is belated. The Court further observes that the applicant did not appeal against any subsequent detention orders, thus not providing the domestic authorities with an opportunity to consider whether his detention was compatible with his Convention right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. In view of the above, the Court finds that the application is inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides that the mother of the applicant (application no. 34815/14), Ms   Y.   Khamkhoyeva, has locus standi in the proceedings; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017.   Karen Reid   Luis López Guerra   Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Period of detention Length of detention     2091/11 30/11/2010 Igor Yuryevich ELKSNIT 20/10/1971     23/11/2009 to 22/11/2010   1 year       7428/12 11/01/2012 Ildar Nailyevich GAZIZOV 11/11/1977     19/10/2010 to 09/09/2011   10 month(s) and 22 day(s)       13973/12 24/02/2012 Vladimir Vladimirovich YEVTOV 01/01/1979     18/10/2011 to 20/06/2012   8 month(s) and 3   day(s)       34815/14 09/04/2014 Yusup Salmanovich KHAMKHOYEV 01/05/1978 Demidas Nina Nikolayevna Khabarovsk 18/03/2012 to 29/09/2014   2 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 12 day(s)