CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 29 avril 2021

.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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; 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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7486CA7E { width:0.34pt; display:inline-block } .s34EC51A7 { width:174.94pt; 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 } .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 RZHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 29295/18 and 9 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 29 April 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rzhanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 April 2021, 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. 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. 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.     In the leading case of Dirdizov v.   Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court has 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In applications nos.   29471/18, 30414/18 and 30815/18, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   84-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages in the courtroom; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   152-58, 22 May 2012; concerning lack of a speedy review of pre-trial detention; and Govorushko v. Russia , no. 42940/06, §§   53-61, 25 October 2007, concerning lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In some applications the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     In particular, in application no. 32691/18 the applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about excessively lengthy detention in violation of domestic law. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application with regard to Article 5 of the Convention. It thus considers that the applicant’s complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 14.     In application no.   29471/18 the applicant also raised another complaint under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention. 15.     Having examined it, the Court 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 application no.   29471/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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.” 17.     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. 18.     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 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, as well as the complaint raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 32691/18 admissible,   and the remainder of application no.   29471/18 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 the appended table); Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article   5   §   1 of the Convention in application no. 32691/18; 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 29 April 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli 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 Year 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) [1]     29295/18 13/06/2018 Vladimir Veniaminovich RZHANOV 1978 Mazitov Marat Farukovich Moscow 14/10/2015 to 22/03/2019 Moscow City Court 3   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 9   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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.     3,600     29471/18 01/06/2018 Magomed Mazhitovich MUKHIYEV 1963 Kilesso Mariya Aleksandrovna Moscow 18/12/2015 to 26/08/2019     19/06/2020 pending Tverskoy District Court of Moscow;       Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 3   year(s) and 8   month(s) and 9   day(s)     More than 9 month(s) and 6 day(s) Collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention orders issued on 04/10/2017 (appeal decision of 05/12/2017), issued on 27/12/2017 (appeal decision of 20/02/2018). 5,100     29514/18 14/06/2018 Aleksandr Taymurazovich GASIYEV 1992 Aydarov Vladimir Feliksovich Vladikavkaz 23/02/2014 to 18/09/2018 Sovetskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz; Supreme Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic   4   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 27   day(s)   Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed   4,700     29533/18 20/06/2018 Yegor Vladimirovich NOSKOV 1981 Medvedeva Anna Olegovna Moscow 24/05/2016 to 01/04/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow 2   year(s) and 10   month(s) and 9   day(s)   Collective detention orders; 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; 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   3,000     29557/18 18/06/2018 Sergey Sergeyevich BOGDANOV 1967 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Strasbourg 16/11/2017 pending Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 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.   3,500     30166/18 04/06/2018 Zakhar Khamziyevich ARSLANOV 1979 Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich Rostov-on-Don 23/12/2017 pending Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don; Rostov Regional Court More than 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s) Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.   3,400     30414/18 13/06/2018 Aleksandr Anatolyevich SMIRNOV 1988 Prokopov Aleksey Andreyevich Velikiy Novgorod 14/08/2017 pending Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court More than 3   year(s) and 7   month(s) and 4   day(s)   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. Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 no enforceable right to compensation for a violation of his right under Article 5   §   3 in the domestic law.   3,800     30815/18 20/06/2018 Aleksandr Fedorovich SHCHIPANOV 1980 Agranovskiy Dmitriy Vladimirovich Moscow 23/10/2015 to 22/02/2018 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; Shchelkovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court 2   year(s) and 4   month(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.   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a number of hearings before the Shchelkovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region with the conviction on 22/02/2018. 9,750     32691/18 29/06/2018 Oleg Ruslanovich ZASEYEV 1973 Mazitov Marat Farukovich Moscow 30/05/2016 to 27/09/2019 Moscow City Court 3   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 29   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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.     3,400   35962/18 20/07/2018 Aleksandr Vladimirovich UNIKOVSKIY 1975 Sidorenko Boris Vladimirovich Pyatigorsk 12/07/2012 to 16/08/2016     26/07/2017 to 31/12/2019 Georgiyevskiy District Court of Stavropol; Leninskiy District Court;   Sovetskiy District Court of Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court 4   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 5   day(s)     2   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 6   day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts collective detention orders, failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.