CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC1A90076 { width:3.54%; 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 } .s34E49363 { width:9.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFE93722A { width:11.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s92C821B8 { width:8.48%; 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 } .s8D022577 { width:7.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC3AD118 { width:12.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s71805B56 { width:29.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEE7D5A { width:16.9%; 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 } .s4850AD88 { width:3.54%; 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 } .sF18EF3B1 { width:9.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC7195DD9 { width:11.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3E181D07 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE55B71A9 { width:7.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23889FF1 { width:12.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4764E10C { width:29.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1CB741E3 { width:16.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s11E06D70 { height:43.15pt } .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 POLTORATSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application nos. 4622/09 and 9 others – see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   30 November 2017         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.     In the case of Poltoratskiy 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 9 November 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 reads 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 will firstly address the objections raised by the Government in respect of application no. 55219/12. In particular, the Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in view of the fact that he had been afforded compensation for his unlawful detention by a Russian court. In this respect the Court notes that the domestic courts which examined the applicant’s claim had explicitly refused to acknowledge the violation of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The Court further reiterates that it has already examined a similar issue in other cases against Russia, having noted, in particular, that the state of Russian law precludes any legal possibility for the applicant to receive compensation for the detention which was effected in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Govorush ko v. Russia , no. 42940/06, § 60, 25 October 2007, and Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, § 62, 25 October 2007). The Court does not consider that it can reach a different conclusion in the present case and dismisses the Government’s objection as to the victim status of the applicant in application no. 55219/12. 8.     The Court further 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). 9.     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. 10.     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. 11.     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 12.     In applications nos. 4622/09, 9361/10, 55219/12, 328/17 and 23928/17 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 Idalov v. Russia ([GC], no. 5826/03, §§   154-158, 22 May 2013), regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters; Govorushko (cited above, §§   69-61) and Korshunov (cited above, §§ 60-63), concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Khudoyorov v. Russia (no.   6847/02, §§ 146-151, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), pertaining to the absence a valid domestic decision or other “lawful” basis for detention on remand; and Tsarenko v. Russia (no. 5235/09, §§ 58-63, 3 March 2011), regarding detention in excess of the maximum time-limit established by the Russian law. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In applications nos.   4622/09, 328/17, and 3132/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.     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 the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     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. 17.     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.   4622/09, 328/17, and 3132/17 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 of the Convention 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 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]     4622/09 23/11/2008 Vladislav Mikhaylovich Poltoratskiy 21/10/1968     01/02/2008 to 10/12/2010 2 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 10 day(s)   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant’s detention from 12/07/2009 to 6/08/2009 is not covered by a judicial order (see Khudoyorov v. Russia , no. 6847/02, §§ 146-151, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)) 4,000     9361/10 28/01/2010 Saveliy Mendelevich Burshteyn 10/05/1957 Stavitskaya Anna Edvardovna Moscow 20/01/2008 to 31/05/2010 2 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 12 day(s)   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – After 20/07/2009 the applicant’s detention exceeded the statutory 18-month time-limit provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Tsarenko v. Russia , no. 5235/09, 3/03/2011), Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – 1) Detention order of 13/07/2009 by the Moscow City Court, appeal filed on 7/05/2009, appeal decision delivered on 9/09/2009. 2) Decision of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow of 18/09/2009 containing, inter alia , detention order, appeal filed within 10 days, appeal decision delivered on 11/11/2009. 3) Detention order of 26/11/2009 by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow, appeal received by domestic authorities in early December, appeal decision delivered on 18/01/2010. 3,300     55219/12 06/08/2012 Vadim Valeryevich Palkin 29/04/1979     28/11/2010 to 19/06/2013 2 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 23 day(s)   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - domestic court pointed out that claims about breaches of the Convention are out of national courts’ jurisdiction and explicitly refused to award compensation for the unreasonably lengthy detention 3,500     328/17 15/12/2016 Kirill Yevgenyevich Skachkov 22/10/1988 Konin Nikolay Nikolayevich St Petersburg 13/04/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 24 day(s)   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appellate hearing with regard to the detention order of 26/05/2016 was held on 18/08/2016. 1,600     2803/17 27/12/2016 Konstantin Grigoryevich Pilipiliadi 02/09/1958     30/10/2015 pending More than 1 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 7   day(s)     2,000     3031/17 17/12/2016 Vladimir Gaffanovich Shamsedtinov 12/06/1978 Geraskin Eduard Olegovich Moscow 05/08/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 2   day(s)     2,300     3132/17 07/11/2016 Maksim Yevgenyevich Ionov 17/11/1982     15/01/2014 pending More than 3 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 22   day(s)     3,900     17911/17 20/02/2017 Aleksandr Viktorovich Voronov 04/01/1982     19/06/2015 to 28/06/2017 2 year(s) and 10 day(s)     2,100     22861/17 15/03/2017 Roman Aleksandrovich Cherkasov 28/08/1975     03/08/2015 to 18/08/2017 2 year(s) and 16 day(s)     2,100   23928/17 02/03/2017 Aleksey Anatolyevich Timofeyev 17/12/1983     19/01/2014 to 06/10/2016 2 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 18 day(s)   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 5/07/2016 - appeal decision on 8/09/2016. 3,800     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.