CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 juin 2018

.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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; 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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAE0F63AC { width:4.24%; 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 } .s92C821B8 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE39A2A97 { width:12.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD0CC3F5A { width:8.08%; 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 } .sB0CB7F3F { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s691540AC { width:8.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF33DA1BC { width:10.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s248CD678 { width:18.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC1A84BFA { width:10.42%; 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 } .sFA2E2D22 { width:12.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4D82680 { width:4.24%; 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 } .s3E181D07 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79BDA5DD { width:12.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s360C4469 { width:8.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB4371AF0 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s855B731C { width:8.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE0806845 { width:10.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9384BE67 { width:18.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDC78F956 { width:10.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1E956FF8 { width:12.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s73AF07F { height:98.65pt } .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 SHAKIROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 31393/08 and 4 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   14 June 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shakirova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 May 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. They also complained about the poor conditions of their detention and raised some 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.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT A PART OF THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     The applicants further complained under Article   3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their pre-trial detention. 12.     The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. 13.     The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. 14.     The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.” 15.     Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). 16.     The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012). 17.     Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications in the part dealing with the complaints about poor conditions of detention (Article   37 §   1   (c)). 18.     In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications in this part (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). 19.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). 20.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of the applicants’ pre-trial detention. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 21.     In applications nos. 31393/08 and 35760/14 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 22.     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 23.     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.” 24.     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. 25.     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.     Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein and decides to strike the part of the applications concerning the inadequate conditions of pre-trial detention out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention;   3.     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention admissible   and the remainder of applications nos. 31393/08 and 35760/14 inadmissible;   4.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   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 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková 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 by the Court for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded under a unilateral declaration for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [2]     31393/08 15/05/2008 Fatilya Abdulovna Shakirova 01/07/1970     23/01/2008 to 18/03/2008       14/04/2008 to 10/07/2008 1 month(s) and 25 day(s)         2 month(s) and 27 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. 0 3,830     1017/10 26/10/2009 Andrey Yuryevich Kuznetsov 14/05/1976 Chuprinin Viktor Vasilyevich Vladikavkaz 07/11/2007 to 16/06/2010 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 10 day(s)   Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic / Military Court of the Groznyy Garrison / Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic / Military Court of the North-Caucasian Circuit / 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restrain; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. 0 4,100     35760/14 26/03/2014 Maksim Yuryevich Golikov 22/10/1969     26/02/2012 to 28/10/2014         25/05/2015 to 17/10/2016 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)         1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s) Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg / Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg /   Okyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg / St Petersburg City Court - collective detention orders; - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. 3,300 11,000     19317/15 15/04/2015 Tazhudin Anvarpashayevich Mazayev 28/02/1984 Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich Astrakhan 09/07/2014 to 25/05/2015 10 month(s) and 17 day(s)   Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan / Astrakhan 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. 0 4,675     41451/16 06/07/2016 Eduard Fanusovich Akhmadullin 28/02/1968 Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich Krasnodar 13/02/2016 to 06/07/2017 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)   Ust-Labinsk District Court of the Krasnodar Region / Krasnodar 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. 0 4,090     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.