CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 2 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s88DC4A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF KONDRATYUK AND CHAYKA v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33857/17 and 69430/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 July 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kondratyuk and Chayka 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 11 June 2020, 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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and also raised other complaints under various 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 5 § 4 “4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” 7.     The Court reiterates that where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has set up very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-164, 22 May 2012; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 219-248, 31 May 2011; and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25   October   2007). The Court further notes that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia, where, for instance, the proceedings by which the lawfulness of applicants’ detention was decided lasted 27 days (see Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, §§ 154-56, 23   October 2012), 20 days (see Butusov v. Russia , no. 7923/04, §§ 32-35, 22   December 2009) or 26 days (see Mamedova v. Russia , no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006), and stressing that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities. 8.     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 the present complaints. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     The applicant in application no. 69430/17 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 particular, in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, insofar as they relate to the applicant’s complaints about poor conditions of transport; Dirdizov v.   Russia , no.   41461/10, 27 November 2012 for the complaint under Article   5 § 3 of the Convention; and Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, 25   October 2007, related to an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     In application no.   33857/17, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 §   3   of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the complaint 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, this complaint 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. 13.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11   July 2017; Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21   June 2016; Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874/11, §§ 113-115, 18 February 2016; Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19   January 2016; and Karaosmanoglu and Özden v. Turkey, no. 4807/08, §§   89-91, 17 June 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16.     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; Declares the complaints concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no. 33857/17 inadmissible; Holds that the complaints concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention disclose a breach of Article 5   §   4 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court in application no. 69430/17 (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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 July 2020, 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 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     33857/17 05/06/2017 Fedor Vladimirovich KONDRATYUK 14/01/1980     Detention order of the Leninskiy District Court of the Primorye Region of 14/11/2016 was upheld on appeal on 30/12/2016   The appeal decision was then quashed by the Presidium of the Regional Court on 03/04/2016, a new appeal decision was issued on 13/04/2017. Primorye Regional Court 13/04/2017 Lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012).   500       69430/17 13/09/2017 Yevgeniy Valentinovich CHAYKA 04/06/1967   Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow 18/01/2017,   17/04/2017 Moscow City Court 13/04/2017,   06/07/2017 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 26/08/2016 to 29/12/2017; 1 year and 4 months and 4 days   Detention orders were issued by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow and upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court; the main defects were: 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;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of transport on multiple occasions from 26/08/2016 to 07/09/2018; convoy cell, van; only dry food, 0.23 sq. m of personal space; up to 5-hour-trips; overcrowding     Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention in respect the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 2,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.