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 } .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 } .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 } .sF74BA163 { width:3.12%; 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 } .sE87BCA71 { width:8.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sACC3B8C4 { width:9.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .s25B54AE2 { width:10.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4F1AA88F { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4CF2D22C { width:30.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAB235D59 { width:11.54%; 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 } .sD5F7A39B { width:3.12%; 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 } .sB8882FFD { width:8.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8CF304BB { width:9.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA8396420 { width:10.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7792C3D1 { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2CC35DB2 { width:30.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s37AF4F54 { width:11.54%; 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 ARSENTYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 17970/10 and 5 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 Arsentyev 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. 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 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 and the Government’s objection concerning the six-month time-limit and exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant in application no. 75363/16, 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, including the case-law governing the application of the six-month and exhaustion rules to cases brought under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Pshevecherskiy v. Russia , no. 28957/02, §§ 53/54, 24 May 2007), the Court dismisses the Government’s objection raised in respect of application no.   75363/16 and 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.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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.” 12.     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. 13.     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 (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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     17970/10 24/02/2010 Mikhail Vladimirovich Arsentyev 04/07/1985     13/10/2009 to 30/08/2010 10 month(s) and 18 day(s)   Irkutsk Regional Court; Military Court of the East-Siberian Circuit; Military Commission of the Supreme Court of Russia; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation - 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. 1,000     63005/16 20/10/2016 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Kuchulov 20/11/1981     04/06/2015 to 14/11/2016 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 11 day(s)   Tobolsk Town Court of the Tyumen Region; Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen; Tyumen Regional Court - 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. 1,600     67558/16 11/11/2016 Oleg Vasilyevich Kurosh 09/12/1987     16/09/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 6 day(s)   Syktyvkar Town Court; Supreme Court of the Komi 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. 2,500     69128/16 31/10/2016 Marat Khalilovich Sabirov 08/07/1978     04/12/2013 to 23/03/2017 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 20 day(s)   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic; Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit - collective detention orders; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. 3,400     71484/16 19/11/2016 Saveliy Mikhaylovich Motoshkin 01/02/1977     13/01/2016 to 30/06/2016 5 month(s) and 18 day(s)   Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude; Supreme Court of the Buryatiya 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 1,000     75363/16 28/11/2016 Daniil Sergeyevich Demidov 12/12/1969 Anikina Natalya Anatolyevna Moscow 24/02/2014 pending More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)   Moscow Regional Court; Appellate Commission of the Moscow 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; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. 4,100     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.