CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG27
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 janvier 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0118DEC006031608
- Date
- 18 janvier 2018
- Publication
- 18 janvier 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleInadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .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 } .s9CEB77E1 { width:1.53pt; display:inline-block } .s9D465357 { width:187.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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. 60316/08 Bella Andreyevna KOCHNEVA against Russia and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   January 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, 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”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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.     Complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the alleged violations of the Convention. In particular, in application no. 60316/08, the latest detention order in the applicant’s criminal proceedings in respect of which she brought an appeal was the decision of the Kimrskiy District Court of Tver dated 13 April 2007. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Tver Regional Court on 24   May 2007. The application was lodged with the Court on 8 September 2008, which is more than six months later. The applicant did not appeal against any subsequent detention order issued after 13 April 2007. It follows that the complaint about the unreasonably long detention on remand raised in application no. 60316/08 should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention raised in the remaining applications, the Court notes the relatively short duration of the pre-trial detention for the majority of the applicants. 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 criminal offences, 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 at the time. 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’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints The applicant in application no. 60316/08 also complained under Article   6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. The Court has examined the complaint 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, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention and does 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 8   February 2018.      Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction   Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Period of detention     60316/08 08/09/2008 Bella Andreyevna Kochneva 07/01/1984 Nagornyy Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Kimry, Tver Region 28/05/2004 to 31/07/2006   16/01/2007 to 12/03/2008       11840/15 16/02/2015 Yevgeniy Viktorovich Bogomyagkov 24/10/1959       10/06/2014 to 19/02/2015     19897/16 13/07/2016 Eduard Aleksandrovich Shilintsev 26/01/1965   Dubonosova Anna Eduardovna Velikiy Novgorod 19/10/2015 pending     53775/16 03/09/2016 Tatyana Nikolayevna Stepanova 05/01/1974       17/02/2016 to 31/05/2016     56996/16 16/09/2016 Elkhan Vekil Ogly Guseynov 05/04/1971   Losev Vyacheslav Konstantinovich Syktykvar 21/04/2016 to 08/08/2016     67008/16 19/10/2016 Almaz Arslanovich Galeyev 17/04/1980       11/12/2013 to 23/03/2017     1194/17 22/12/2016 Dmitriy Sergeyevich Minenkov 01/10/1985       24/06/2016 to 17/01/2017  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 27
- Date
- 18 janvier 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0118DEC006031608
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral