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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s3D29BA66 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sF3B8B73E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .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 ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 52180/17 and 16 others - see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 July 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ananyev 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 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 excessive length of their pre-trial detention. 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   §   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 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.” 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.     As concerns application no. 12186/18, the Court would like to stress that this is the second application lodged by Mr Kamenev 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. 16417/16) lodged by Mr Kamenev on 15 March 2016 on account of his on-going unreasonably long detention on remand (see Vikharev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 32357/05 and 5 others, 16 February 2017). Following that judgment, Mr Kamenev remained in detention pending trial proceedings against him until his conviction on 18 December 2017. On 28   February 2018, 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. 9.     In their observations lodged on 19 September 2018 the Government merely noted that the domestic decisions authorising the extension of Mr   Kamenev’s detention on remand contained relevant and sufficient reasons justifying his continued detention. 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). 10.     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). 11.     The Court observes that application no. 16417/16 concerned the applicant’s excessively long detention on remand. When the Court delivered its judgment on 16 February 2017, 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. 12.     The present application, which the applicant lodged on 28 February 2018, concerns his continuous detention on remand in the period subsequent to the Court’s judgment of 16 February 2017. 13.     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 ten months after the Court had delivered its judgment in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Wasserman (no. 2) , cited above, § 36). 14.     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 to entertain this complaint. Moreover, when assessing the reasonableness of the remaining period between 16 February 2017 and 18 December 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). 15.     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, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 16.     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. 17.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     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.” 19.     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. 20.     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 applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 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 § 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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     52180/17 13/07/2017 Anatoliy Yevgenyevich ANANYEV 10/10/1973     31/03/2013 to 31/08/2017 Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 4 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 1 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention 6,000     78461/17 01/03/2018 Samir Ibragim ogly GUSEYNOV 21/06/1979     31/03/2013 to 11/04/2018 Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 5 year(s) and 12 day(s)   collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention 6,500     9326/18 12/01/2018 Aleksey Nikolayevich RYBUSHKIN 10/10/1978     10/05/2016 pending Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 3   year(s) and 11 month(s) and 25 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention 5,200     9682/18 31/01/2018 Dmitriy Anatolyevich BYKOV 25/07/1991 Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich Kursk 02/03/2017 to 24/08/2018 Leninskiy District Court of Kursk; Kursk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 23 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 2,100     12186/18 28/02/2018 Vitaliy Aleksandrovich KAMENEV 02/07/1976     28/02/2014 to 18/12/2017     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s), 9   month(s) and 21 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; On 16 February 2017 the Court already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention on remand within the same set of criminal proceedings with the period starting on 28/02/2014 (application no. 16417/16) (see Vikharev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 32357/05 and 5 others, 16 February 2017). The applicant remained in detention on remand following the Court’s judgment and until his conviction on 18/12/2017 1,300     16922/18 15/03/2018 Vitaliy Viktorovich KOSHENOK 10/03/1977 Nazarov Ivan Rostov-on-Don 18/09/2017 to 27/02/2018 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don; Rostov Regional Court 5 month(s) and 10 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 1,300     19344/18 12/04/2018 Mikhail Leonidovich KOLMYKOV 08/11/1962     12/10/2017 pending Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don; Rostov Regional Court More than 2   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 23 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint 3,500     38490/18 31/07/2018 Ilnaz Ravilovich SAFIULLIN 29/12/1986     14/03/2017 to 05/02/2020 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic; Privolzhskiy Military District Court; Military Court of Appeal 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding while the proceedings were already pending at the advanced stage; collective detention orders merely listing the names of the applicants and finding no grounds to change the measure of restraint without assessment of personal situation of each of co-defendants, the individual risks they could have or not posed and alternative measures which could have been individually applied 4,000     41919/18 23/08/2018 Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich ILYIN 20/06/1972 Okushko Tatyana Borisovna Moscow 01/12/2017 pending Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 2   year(s) and 4   month(s) and 23 day(s)   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 3,300   47949/18 01/10/2018 Aleksandr Pavlovich BOSTRIKOV 05/05/1979     26/04/2017 pending Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 2   year(s) and 11 month(s) and 29 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, in particular taking into account the applicant having been detained for a lengthy period (at least until 07/12/2018) since 04/07/2017 for the sole purpose of the need to study the case-file 3,900   49783/18 20/09/2018 Aydar Radikovich NURIYEV 12/02/1987     26/01/2016 pending Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 4   year(s) and 2   month(s) and 29 day(s)   failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, in particular taking into account the applicant having been detained for a lengthy period (at least until April 2019 according to the latest information provided by the applicant to the Court) since 23/06/2017 for the sole purpose of the need to study the case-file 5,600   58046/18 21/11/2018 Azat Ilgizovich ZAGIYEV 21/07/1990     17/10/2017 to 26/04/2019 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 1 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 10 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to properly assess the applicant’s personal situation, to provide clear reasoning for the prolonged detention, in addition to the gravity of the charge; extremely scarce reasoning of the detention orders 2,200   368/19 19/12/2018 Aleksey Georgiyevich MAYNAGASHEV 03/01/1981 Ayeshin Dmitriy Alekseyevich Abakan 02/11/2015 to 24/04/2019 Abakan Town Court; Supreme Court of the Khakasiya Republic 3 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 23 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders 4,700   1078/19 06/12/2018 Larisa Nikolayevna LYAKHOVETS 15/06/1981     30/06/2015 to 12/11/2019 Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude; Supreme Court of the Buryatiya Republic;   Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court 4 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 14 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention 5,900   3071/19 28/12/2018 Denis Igorevich IVANOV 25/07/2000 Stupin Yevgeniy Viktorovich Moscow 19/09/2018 to 11/04/2019 Ivanteyevka Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court 6 month(s) and 24 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, taking into account the applicant’s personal situation, such as his young age, family ties, lack of a previous criminal record, permanent place of residence, his good conduct certificates, the fact that he had admitted his guilt and was willing to cooperate with the investigating authorities, and the fact that he had been charged with a non-violent crime 1,300   15698/19 06/03/2019 Tatyana Anatolyevna RUF 12/12/1963 Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 10/12/2018 pending Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don; Rostov Regional Court More than 1   year(s) and 4   month(s) and 14 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 2,000   17316/19 15/03/2019 Komil Karimovich MATIYEV 04/09/1980     14/03/2017 pending Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 3   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 10 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding 4,200     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.