CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 septembre 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 69168/17 Vladimir Viktorovich SOKOLOV against Russia and 14 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   September 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 some applications and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in application no. 79579/17, 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. 4638/19, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under another provision 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 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “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.” As regards application no. 3105/18, the Court observes that the applicant’s pre-trial detention comprised two distinct periods: (1) from 12   August 2003, when the applicant was arrested pending criminal investigation against him, to 29 September 2005, when he was convicted by the trial court at first level of jurisdiction, and (2) from 20 December 2016, when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the applicant’s conviction in view of newly discovered facts, to his conviction on 8   September 2018 by the trial court at the first level of jurisdiction. In between those two periods the applicant’s first conviction became final, when upheld by the appellate court on 5 June 2006, and the applicant, for approximately ten years, served a prison sentence. The Court considers that, similarly to the situation in the case of Idalov v.   Russia ([GC], no. 5826/03, § §   127-33, 22 May 2012) the six-month rule should be applied, separately, to each period of pre-trial detention. Accordingly, the Court cannot consider whether or not the first period was compatible with the Convention. The applicant’s complaint in the part concerning the period of pre-trial detention from 12   August 2003 to 29   September 2005 should be declared inadmissible as being lodged out of time. As to the complaint in the part concerning the second period of pre-trial detention from 20   December 2016 to 8   September 2018 (application no.   3105/18) and the remaining Article 5 § 3 complaints in other applications, 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). In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of pre-trial detention are inadmissible. The Court notes that while extending the applicants’ detention the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated and/or 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 behaviour, organised nature of the crimes, extensive connection to the criminal underworld and/or substantial financial resources and previous documented attempts to intimidate witnesses or victims. 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. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ 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 these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints As regards the complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention lodged by Ms Trukhina (application no. 4638/19), the Court reiterates that the right to compensation under the said Article arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v.   Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v.   Bulgaria , no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çağdaş Şahin v.   Turkey , no.   28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006). In the instant case neither the Court nor the domestic courts acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights set out in Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. Accordingly, in the absence of such acknowledgment, Article 5 § 5 is not applicable to the present case. It follows that this part of application no. 4638/19 is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.   {signature_p_2}   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 Alleged defects Other complaints     69168/17 09/09/2017 Vladimir Viktorovich SOKOLOV 1963 Gudkov Denis Yuryevich Samara 12/02/2016 to 09/10/2017 Kirovskiy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 28 day(s)   excessive length of detention pending trial       72579/17 02/10/2017 Aleksandra Vladimirovna POGORELOVA 1986 Gribov Lev Georgiyevich St Petersburg 04/04/2016 to 09/06/2016   02/03/2017 to 05/03/2018 Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 2 month(s) and 6 day(s)     1 year(s) and 4 day(s)   excessive length of detention pending trial       73689/17 01/10/2017 Artur Andranikovich AKOBDZHANYAN 1982     07/04/2017 to 06/04/2018 Promyshlennyy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court 1 year   excessive length of detention pending trial       3105/18 20/12/2017 Igor Viktorovich RYABOKON (KRAFT) 1970 Yablokov Anatoliy Yuryevich Moscow 12/08/2003 to 29/09/2005   20/12/2016 to 08/09/2018     Smolensk Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s)   1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 20 day(s) 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       7543/18 23/01/2018 Andrey Gennadyevich SUSARIN 1981     08/02/2016 to 07/05/2018 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan and Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 3 month(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         9809/18 11/02/2018 Yevgeniy Yuryevich GUBAREV 1985     28/10/2015 to 07/09/2020 Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow, Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow and Moscow City Court   4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s) 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       11314/18 04/02/2018 Aleksey Grigoryevich PLEKHANOV 1975     01/06/2016 to 28/09/2018 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan and Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan / Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 28 day(s) failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention       21175/18 31/08/2018 Igor Olegovich VASILYEV 1989     19/08/2015 to 06/09/2018 Novgorod Regional Court; Starorusskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region; Pskov Regional Court   3 year(s) and 19 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention       45860/18 13/09/2018 Galina Yevgenyevna ANISIMOVA 1974 Dolgoborodova Galina Nikolayevna St Petersburg 28/09/2017 to 14/12/2018 Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 17 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention     50669/18 08/10/2018 Aleksey Sergeyevich PTASHINSKIY 1990     15/03/2018 to 28/05/2019 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice     56626/18 16/11/2018 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich SUKHANOV 1975 Mitrokhina Yuliya Vyacheslavovna Novosibirsk 12/05/2018 to 13/03/2019 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)   failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts     57458/18 03/12/2018 Andrey Viktorovich VEDERNIKOV 1975 Belova Yekaterina Borisovna Moscow 31/05/2018 to 20/07/2018 Boksitogorskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region; Leningrad Regional Court 1 month(s) and 21 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     4638/19 11/12/2018 Oksana Yevgenyevna TRUKHINA 1977     23/05/2018 to 19/10/2018 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 4 month(s) and 27 day(s)   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; 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. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - Absence of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.   12630/19 04/02/2019 Vasiliy Vasilyevich NAVRAZHNYKH 1976 Sharin Sergey Valeryevich Arkhangelsk 13/07/2017 to 18/12/2018 Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk; Arkhangelsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 5 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     23916/19 01/04/2019 Artem Sergeyevich ZOLOTUKHIN 1991     06/11/2016 to 04/12/2019 Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s) and 29 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint