CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 19 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sEA788D2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4B56455 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }       THIRD SECTION         CASE OF VORONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 66754/13 and 10 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 19 December 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Voronov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2019, 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.     Notice of the applications was given 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW 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. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION No. 43229/17 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no.   43229/17 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see   Tahsin   Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §   75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI).   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention, which reads 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.” 8.     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). 9.     As concerns application no. 55885/17, the Court would like to stress that this is the second application lodged by Mr Abdrakhmanov concerning one and the same lengthy detention on remand. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the first application (no. 40987/14) lodged by Mr Abdrakhmanov on 30 April 2014 on account of his on-going unreasonably long detention on remand (see Khamzin and others v Russia [Committee], nos. 72986/10 and 4 others, 6   October 2016). Following that judgment, Mr Abdrakhmanov remained in detention pending trial proceedings against him until his conviction on 29   May 2017. On 20 July 2017, which is within six months from the final order authorising the extension of his detention on remand, he lodged the present application with the Court. 10.     The Government did not make any observations in this respect, having merely noted that the documents available to the Court are sufficient to assess the case properly. The Court reiterates that in principle there is nothing to prevent the Court from examining a subsequent application raising a new issue undecided by the original judgment (see Mehemi v.   France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003 ‑ IV; Pailot v. France , 22   April 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ II; Leterme v.   France , 29 April 1998, Reports 1998 ‑ III; and Rando v. Italy , no.   38498/97, 15 February 2000). 11.     In the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which the Court found a violation of that right during a certain period, it is not unusual for the Court to examine a second application concerning a violation of the same right during the subsequent period (see Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no.   21071/05, § 33, 10 April 2008, with further references). 12.     The Court observes that application no. 40987/14 concerned the applicant’s excessively long detention on remand. When the Court delivered its judgment on 6 October 2016, having found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and having made an award in respect of the period preceding its judgment, the applicant was still in detention on remand. 13.     The present application, which the applicant lodged on 20 July 2017, concerns his continuous detention on remand in the period subsequent to the Court’s judgment of 6 October 2016. 14.     The Court acknowledges that it has no jurisdiction to review the measures adopted in the domestic legal order to put an end to the violations found in its judgment in the first case brought by the applicant. It may, nevertheless, take stock of subsequent factual developments. In this respect, the Court observes that the applicant continued to be detained for another seven months after the Court had delivered its judgment in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Wasserman (no. 2), cited above, § 36). 15.     It follows that, in so far as the applicant’s complaint concerns the further period during which he continued to be detained on remand allegedly in the absence of proper reasons for that, it has not been previously examined by the Court. The Court therefore has competence ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain this complaint. Moreover, when assessing the reasonableness of the remaining period between 6 October 2016 and 29 May 2017 for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court “can take into consideration the fact that an applicant has previously spent time in custody pending trial” (see Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 130, 22 May 2012; for similar approach by the Court see Kolosyuk and others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 45162/13 and 4 others, 14 June 2018). 16.     As concerns all of the applications in the present case, the Court notes that in the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27   November   2012, it already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 17.     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, including that on exhaustion of domestic remedies for complaints about lengthy pre-trial detention (see, for instance, Pshevecherskiy v. Russia , no. 28957/02, §§ 50-55, 24 May 2007), the Court rejects the Government’s objections made to the present applications and considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 18.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 19.     In applications nos.   66754/13, 43229/17 and 47873/17, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of speedy review of detention on remand; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), regarding placement in a metal cage in court hearings; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019 in respect of conditions of transport of detainees; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of detention in pre-trial facilities and lack of an effective remedy to complain about it. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 20.     In applications nos.   66754/13, 39672/17, 41562/17 and 55885/17 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 21.     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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     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.” 23.     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 and dismisses the remaining claims for just satisfaction submitted by some of the applicants as unsubstantiated and/or unrelated to the violations of the Convention found by the Court. 24.     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, Decides to join the applications; Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 43229/17 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted; Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the applications nos.   66754/13, 39672/17, 41562/17 and 55885/17 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 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); 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 December 2019, 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’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention 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) [i]     66754/13 23/09/2013 Aleksey Sergeyevich Voronov 25/04/1982     12/03/2012 to 17/10/2016 Cherepovets Town Court; Vologda Regional Court 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s)   Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; the applicant was remitted to stand trial before the Town Court from 08/08/2013 and then the proceedings were pending before that court; collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; the courts cited gravity of the charges and risks of absconding, re-offending and obstruction without citing any individual circumstances which prompted them to reach that conclusion;   failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Detention in a metal cage during numerous hearings before the Cherepovets Town Court;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport by van from the detention facility to the Cherepovets Town Court to take part in court hearings (conviction on 17/10/2016); time of transport between 30   minutes to 2 hours in a "glass compartment" of the van; personal space less than 0.4 sq. m.; restricted access to toilet. 9,750     34858/17 28/04/2017 Rovlan Shakhzada-ogly Farzaliyev 13/02/1984     24/05/2016 to 05/02/2018 Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s)   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, colluding 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     39672/17 30/10/2017 Yuriy Ivanovich Magerovskiy 30/04/1973     18/08/2014 pending Moscow Regional Court More than 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 22 day(s)   Collective detention orders; 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   6,800     41562/17 29/05/2017 Vyacheslav Yevgenyevich Kirilyuk 28/12/1966 Bykov Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Moscow 31/08/2016 pending Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 day(s)   Collective detention orders; 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, colluding 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.   4,200     43229/17 23/05/2017 Vasiliy Vasilyevich Veryuzhskiy 23/11/1966 Voronin Konstantin Vasilyevich St Petersburg 23/06/2014 to 28/07/2017 Peterogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg; Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)   Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - detention in IZ ‑ 47/1 St Petersburg from 25/04/2014 to 13/02/2018; lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 22,000     47873/17 21/06/2017 Dmitriy Gennadyevich Sharkov 30/09/1979     25/09/2015 to 27/12/2017 Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don; Rostov Regional Court 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 3 day(s)   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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 29/12/2016 was examined on appeal on 20/03/2017 and detention order of 29/03/2017 was examined on appeal on 22/05/2017. 4,100     55885/17 20/07/2017 Rinat Khanyafiyevich Abdrakhmanov 03/06/1974 Strogalev Vladislav Vladimirovich Vologda 24/12/2010 to 29/05/2017 Vologda Town Court; Vologda Regional Court 7 month(s) and 24 day(s)   By the final judgment of 06/10/2016 the Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention within the same set of the criminal proceedings. Starting from his arrest on 24/12/2010 and following the Court’s judgment of 06/10/2016 the applicant continued being detained on remand with his detention regularly extended until his conviction (see §§ 9-15 above). Collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding 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.   1,300     58926/17 04/08/2017 Aldyn Vasilyevich Khayan 07/12/1982 Damdyn Sedip-Ool Ivanovich Kyzyl 24/09/2015 to 11/04/2017 Kyzyl Town Court; Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 19 day(s)   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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,200     78920/17 28/10/2017 Eduard Sergeyevich Chekhlov 01/11/1987     15/12/2015 pending Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan More than 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 25 day(s)   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; collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   5,200   8484/18 12/02/2018 Yekaterina Sergeyevna Kovaleva 12/01/1990 Dvoriak Vladimir Genadyevich Abakan 04/01/2017 pending Abakan Town Court; Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 day(s)   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, colluding 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.   3,900   9365/18 30/01/2018 Daniyel Valeryevich Banar 10/05/1983     18/08/2014 pending Moscow Regional Court More than 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 22 day(s)   As the case progressed: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding 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.   6,800   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.