CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juillet 2017

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s799E5083 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.3pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s219AC2B9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:left } .s9F7AB5CD { width:7.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s12FD4E6 { width:170.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; 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 } .s33BB9D4B { width:3.24%; 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 } .sD0CC3F5A { width:8.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA1BD339E { width:11.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBABAB235 { width:10.04%; 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 } .sCA4A099D { width:6.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB11D8F64 { width:10.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1161DAEF { width:29.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF760864F { width:20.32%; 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 } .s430AB52F { width:3.24%; 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 } .s360C4469 { width:8.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCDD9BFE6 { width:11.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD86ACDB9 { width:10.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s803FC036 { width:6.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC06DC1C { width:10.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC975E5E0 { width:29.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45217B2F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE4B40776 { height:50.8pt } .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 MEMETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 9070/14 and 7 others - see appended list )                       JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   6 July 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Memetov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2017, 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 their pre-trial detention. Some 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.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally 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.” 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 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). 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. 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 applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In applications nos.   9070/14, 12341/14, 13214/14, 15237/14 and 18426/14, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Pyatkov v. Russia , no. 61767/08, §§ 86-91, 13   November 2012; Suslov v. Russia , no. 2366/07, §§ 75-79, 29 May 2012; Tsarenko v.   Russia , no. 5235/09, §§ 59-63, 3   March 2011; Govorushko v.   Russia , no.   42940/06, §§ 57-61, 25 October 2007; and Korshunov v.   Russia , no.   38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   9070/14 and 19133/16, the applicants also raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions. 13.     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. It follows that this part of applications nos.   9070/14 and 19133/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remaining claims for just satisfaction submitted by some of the applicants. 16.     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 pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible   and the remainder of the applications nos.   9070/14 and 19133/16 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     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.   6.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Period of detention Length of detention Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     9070/14 26/12/2013 Ernest Talyatovich Memetov 04/06/1988 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg 16/02/2017 pending   More than 3 months and 7 days   Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - repeated extension of the detention pending reading of the case-file beyond the maximum period established in the Russian law; courts’ detention orders returning the case to the prosecutors did not indicate any time-limits   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial 1,300     12341/14 27/03/2014 Andrey Alekseyevich Morkovin 07/02/1993 Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna Moscow 23/07/2010 pending   More than 6 year(s) and 10 month(s) Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - repeated extension of the detention pending reading of the case-file beyond the maximum period established in the Russian law; courts’ detention orders returning the case to the prosecutors did not indicate any time-limits,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial 9,100     13214/14 20/05/2014 Rustam Saydaliyevich Norov 18/08/1979 Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna Moscow 24/12/2010 pending   More than 6 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29 day(s)   Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - repeated extension of detention pending study of case-file beyond the maximum period established in the Russian law; courts’ detention orders returning the case to the prosecutors did not indicate any time-limits, Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial 8,500     15237/14 07/05/2014 Arkadiy Ivanovich Pavlyukevich 12/12/1978 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg 13/07/2011 pending   More than 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 day(s)   Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - repeated extension of the detention pending reading of the case-file beyond the maximum period established in the Russian law; courts’ detention orders returning the case to the prosecutors did not indicate any time-limits,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial 7,900     18426/14 07/05/2014 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Posokhin 21/03/1986 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow 19/05/2011 pending   More than 6 year(s) and 4 day(s)   Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - repeated extension of the detention pending reading of the case-file beyond the maximum period established in the Russian law; courts’ detention orders returning the case to the prosecutors did not indicate any time-limits,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. 7,900     18466/14 05/09/2014 Taisiya Islamovna Baskayeva 30/08/1957 Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg 28/02/2014 to 08/10/2014   7 month(s) and 11 day(s)     1,000     60029/15 25/11/2015 Oleg Borisovich Fedorov 01/08/1960 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod 23/05/2013 pending   More than 4 year(s)   4,000     19133/16 28/03/2016 Aleksandr Valentinovich Zacharchenko 14/10/1987 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow 01/07/2010 pending   More than 6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 day(s)     7,100     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.