CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 29 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC45C2AB { width:3.32%; 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 } .sAEEB25D2 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4DB80EE1 { width:10.24%; 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 } .s6B9A0E3E { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4BA5A151 { width:12.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9B73C5B1 { width:22.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2F1D810D { width:11.24%; 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 } .s8DBDE82D { width:3.32%; 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 } .s906D09D5 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A11E46B { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDC555E47 { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBC1AA77B { width:12.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6BEEE4C { width:22.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEEAB5E1C { width:11.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 BELKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 8344/12 and 6 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   29 March 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Belkov 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 8 March 2018, 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. In application no.   8344/12 the applicant submitted also a complaint under Article   5   §   4 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 application no.   8344/12 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article   5   §   4 which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of speediness in the review of the detention matters. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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.” 13.     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. 14.     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 applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications 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 29 March 2018, 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 Courts which issued detention orders/ examined appeals Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     8344/12 26/01/2012 Oleg Viktorovich Belkov 31/03/1967 Nasonov Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow 12/05/2011 to 29/05/2013 2 year(s) and 18 day(s) Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow; Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - collective detention orders. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order of 16/12/2011 examined on appeal on 01/02/2012; detention order of 31/01/2012 was examined by the appeal court on 12/03/2012 2,100     66632/13 11/03/2012 Firdinat Khakimzyanovich Yusupov 30/08/1964 Akmayev Artur Talgatovich Kazan 06/07/2010 to 03/04/2013 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 29 day(s) Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.     2,900     42103/16 04/07/2016 Damir Fazylzhanovich Sarmasin 06/12/1978     20/05/2015 to 06/07/2016   20/10/2016 to 03/04/2017   1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s)     Leninskiy District Court of Orsk; Orenburg Regional Court - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - collective detention orders.   1,800     45922/16 04/08/2016 Erik Davidovich Kituashvili 08/07/1981 Romashov Andrey Mikhaylovich Moscow 21/02/2016 Pending. More than 1 year(s) and 11 month(s)   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,100     47150/16 28/07/2016 Yuriy Ivanovich Cherneyev 07/05/1965 Cherneyeva Tatyana Anatolyevna Donskoye 27/02/2016 to 19/06/2017 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 24 day(s)   Novoaleksandrovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   1,400     54783/16 06/09/2016 Liliya Aleksandrovna Marinicheva 14/10/1970 Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich Samara 04/06/2014 Pending. More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s)   Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the Samara Region; Samara Regional Court - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   3,800     62556/16 17/10/2016 Ufuk Shıre 09/08/1976 Kandin Vasiliy Vasilyevich Moscow 07/12/2015 to 25/10/2017 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,100     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.