CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 décembre 2019

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B53EBCC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 77755/16 Aleksandr Sergeyevich LUZHKOV against Russia and 7 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12   December 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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 in applications nos. 77755/16, 74270/16, 77680/17, 84282/17, 16159/18, 17623/18 and 22480/18, and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 77755/16 and 74270/17, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is 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”). In application no. 16159/18, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW 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. Complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) 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.” 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). Applications nos. 61815/17, 74270/17, 77680/17, 84282/17 and 16159/18 The Court notes that while extending the applicants’ detention the domestic courts had relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated, and for most applicants violent, offences, the 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, organised nature of the crimes, extensive connection to the criminal underworld and/or substantial financial resources and previous documented attempts to tamper with witnesses. 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 to those applicants, but found them to be inadequate. Furthermore, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that while a new set of criminal proceedings had been initiated against the applicant in case no. 77680/17 and his detention on remand was being extended, he was already detained on the basis of the conviction by a competent court which had sentenced him to imprisonment. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicant’s 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’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Application no. 77755/16 The Court notes that in application no. 77755/16 the most recent detention order extending the applicant’s detention against which he appealed was issued in December 2015. The appeal court upheld that order on 2 February 2016. The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 31   October 2016. Consequently, the complaint about the detention period covered by the decisions issued before 2 February 2016 is belated. The Court further observes that the applicant did not appeal against any subsequent detention orders, thus not providing the domestic authorities with an opportunity to consider whether his detention was compatible with his Convention right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. His application should therefore be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Applications nos. 17623/18 and 22480/18 With respect to the remaining two applications the Court observes that the most recent appeal filed by the applicants against a detention order was examined by the Russian courts on 26 July 2017. The two applicants lodged their applications with the Court on 22 March 2018 and 26 April 2018, respectively, which is more than six months after the most recent appeal decision upholding their detention. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints In application no. 16159/18, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5   §   1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of his detention. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, it either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or 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 application is also inadmissible and 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 16 January 2020.   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’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order / examined appeal Length of detention     77755/16 31/10/2016 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Luzhkov 15/07/1978 Kopayeva Yuta Yuryevna Nizhniy Tagil 26/07/2012 to 30/06/2014   11/12/2014 to 17/06/2016 Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 5 day(s)     1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s)       61815/17 10/07/2017 Ilnaz Midkhatovich Faskhutdinov 13/12/1978     07/07/2015 to 08/12/2017 Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 2 day(s)       74270/17 11/10/2017 Vage Ashotovich Parazyan 02/05/1989 Bordushko Olga Aleksandrovna Moscow 01/12/2016 to 04/05/2018 Kaluga District Court of the Kaluga Region; Kaluga Regional Court 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s)       77680/17 20/10/2017 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Zhemis 04/11/1969     11/01/2013 to Pending   On 01/07/2013 the applicant was convicted in another set of unrelated criminal proceedings and sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment;   On 29/05/2014 the applicant was convicted in yet another unrelated set of criminal proceedings and sentenced to 5 years and 11 months of imprisonment Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 6 years 10 months and 10 days       84282/17 23/11/2017 Sergey Sergeyevich Sharov 19/11/1988     02/03/2016 to 10/03/2017 Vadskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 1 year(s) and 9 day(s)       16159/18 19/03/2018 Andrey Vladimirovich Antonov 13/10/1969     22/09/2016 to 22/03/2018 Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok; Primorye Regional Court 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)       17623/18 22/03/2018 Andrey Nikolayevich Titenkov 24/12/1979 Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar 09/06/2015 to 08/11/2017 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 2 year(s) and 5 month(s)       22480/18 26/04/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Danilov 01/02/1982 Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar 16/09/2015 to 08/11/2017 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 24 day(s)