CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 novembre 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 } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; 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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s42B00776 { height:55.5pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s896457AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:8pt } .sED1A34C5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s78B6B604 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sCEE978D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .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 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDD1A7D33 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.25pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD1DCF159 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEE8D31CA { width:9.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA0210C5D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sEB9A085 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s64CC2915 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; 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 } .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 } .s499543FD { width:6.87pt; display:inline-block } .s4C901F17 { width:193.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC582EB9F { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-collapse:collapse } .s2D4DB0A7 { height:12.75pt } .s8D57064D { border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s80CC3006 { border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3E20BBA9 { border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s21EC1463 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s288ACFD5 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8BB329A2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B7F055F { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFED33F93 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOVROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 42296/09 and 4 others– see list appended)     JUDGMENT   Art 5 § 3 • Unjustified length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention and house arrest Art 5 § 5 • Lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in breach of Article 5 § 3 Art 46 • Respondent State required to continue to adopt measures to address the structural problem   STRASBOURG 16 November 2021   FINAL   16/02/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the cases of Kovrov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Dmitry Dedov,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   42296/09, 71805/11, 75089/13, 1327/16 and 14206/16) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Russian nationals (“the applicants”), whose details are listed in Appendix I; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning unjustified pre-trial detention and house arrest, the right to compensation for the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns complaints about pre-trial detention and house arrest and the right to compensation for the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ names and the dates on which they lodged their applications are set out in Appendix I. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. SUMMARY OF FACTS 5.     The applicants were arrested on suspicion of various crimes and were placed under house arrest. Some of them were remanded in custody and then the preventive measure was changed to house arrest. 6 .     The domestic courts extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention and house arrest by using formulaic reasoning and listing the grounds provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as the gravity of the offence, the possibility of the applicant absconding, putting pressure on witnesses, interfering with the investigation or reoffending, without linking them to the circumstances of the applicants’ cases. They ordered the applicants’ pre-trial detention and house arrest on the same grounds throughout the pre-trial detention or house arrest. The appellate courts reproduced the wording of the first-instance courts’ decisions and dismissed the applicants’ appeals against the detention and house arrest orders. The particular circumstances of the cases are indicated in the table below.   Application no. Applicant’s name Period of detention and house arrest Grounds for detention and house arrest 42296/09 Mr Kovrov 26.01.2012 –23.09.2013 (detention) 23.09.2013 – 12.12.2013 (house arrest) (1 year, 10 months, 17 days) Gravity of the charges; collective house arrest order; difficult character; vagrancy; addiction to alcohol, registration with a body responsible for the supervision of minors; previous administrative offences; no control by his mother; pressure on witnesses; possibility of interfering with the investigation, absconding or reoffending; no registered address; inability to finalise the investigation; the need to conduct forensic examinations. 71805/11 Mr Ulyanitskiy 13.04.2011 – 08.06.2012 (house arrest) (1 year, 1 month, 26 days) Gravity of the charges; pressure on witnesses and victim; possibility of interfering with the investigation, destroying evidence, absconding; the need to study the case materials. 75089/13 Mr Botnaryuk 28.12.2012 – 10.02.2014 (house arrest) (1 year, 1 month, 13 days) Gravity of the charges; collective house arrest order; pressure on witnesses and co ‑ accused; possibility of interfering with the investigation; the need to carry out investigative acts. 1327/16 Mr Isaichev 03.04.2015 – 10.03.2017 (house arrest) (1 year, 11 months, 7 days) Gravity of the charges; collective house arrest order; possible threats against witnesses (the applicant’s subordinates); possibility of absconding, destroying evidence or in any other way interfering with the investigation; the need to conduct investigative acts and study the case materials. 14206/16 Mr Nikolenko 08.08.2013 – 04.10.2013 (detention) 04.10.2013 – 14.08.2017 (house arrest) (4 years and 7 days) Gravity of the charges, threats against witnesses, possibility of absconding, destroying evidence, committing crimes or in any other way interfering with the investigation; the need to conduct investigative acts.   FACTS OF INDIVIDUAL CASES Mr Kovrov, application no. 42296/09 7 .     On 26 January 2012 the applicant, 16 years old at the time, was arrested on suspicion of inflicting bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim. 8 .     On 27 January 2012 the Yegoryevsk Town Court of the Moscow Region remanded the applicant in custody on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime, had a difficult character, was prone to lies and vagrancy, which was confirmed by a certificate from his school, was addicted to alcohol, was registered with the Juveniles Commission, had committed several administrative offences, in particular, drinking alcohol in a public place, and might put pressure on witnesses and interfere with the investigation. Mr Kovrov lived with his mother who had been convicted of administrative offences too and did not pay enough attention to him. In 2006 to 2008 he had been taken away from his family and placed into care. The court dismissed arguments by the applicant and his mother against the pre ‑ trial detention and concluded that there was no reason to choose another preventive measure. 9 .     On 26 March, 10 April, 8 June, 10 August, 10 September, 11 October and 10 December 2012 the Yegoryevsk Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention, referring to the same grounds. The court noted that the applicant had not been registered at any place of residence. Therefore, it was impossible to choose any other restrictive measure such as house arrest. The court also held that the applicant could abscond or reoffend without referring to any details. Furthermore, the investigation had not been completed and there were forensic examinations to be conducted. The court dismissed his mother’s arguments that she would be able to look after him during the investigation, stating that she was unable to control her son. 10 .     On 24 June 2013 the Yegoryevsk Town Court extended the pre-trial detention of the applicant (and his co-defendant), stating that he was charged with a serious crime, that taking into account his character and the circumstances of the case the preventive measure could not be changed, and that a psychiatric examination of him was necessary. 11.     The applicant lodged appeals against the detention orders, but the Moscow Regional Court dismissed them. 12 .     On 23 September 2013 the Yegoryevsk Town Court placed him under house arrest, holding that he was charged with a serious crime and that his liberty should therefore be restricted. However, he had already been detained for a long time; he had committed the crime when he had been a minor, and he could live with his mother, who was able to take care of him. By the same order, the court placed the applicant’s co-defendant under house arrest. The court prohibited them from leaving their place of residence, communicating with witnesses, sending and receiving correspondence and using communication devices and the Internet. 13 .     On 20 November 2013 the Yegoryevsk Town Court extended the applicant’s house arrest, stating that there was no reason or new circumstances which required the preventive measure to be changed. 14.     On 12 December 2013 the Yegoryevsk Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. 15.     On 24 December 2013 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 20 November 2013. Mr Ulyanitskiy, application no. 71805/11 16.     On 29 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and questioned as a suspect. 17.     On 30 October 2008 he was released on an undertaking not to leave town. 18.     On 11 November 2008 the undertaking not to leave town was cancelled. 19 .     On 13 April 2011 the applicant was charged with fraud and the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered him to be placed under house arrest, stating that he was suspected of a serious crime, but that as he had not been prosecuted before, there was no reason to choose a more restrictive preventive measure. The measure in question would prevent him from interfering with the investigation by putting pressure on witnesses and the victim or destroying documents. The court dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had not fled the investigation and had appeared for questioning when summoned by the investigator. The court considered that he did not have the status of an accused at that time and that there was no reason to fear criminal prosecution. The court imposed on the applicant the following prohibitions: “- leaving his permanent place of residence at the address ... without the investigator’s written consent; - sending and receiving correspondence, including letters, telegrams, parcels and emails; - giving talks and speeches, making statements and comments on this criminal case through the mass media; - communicating with others without the investigator’s written consent using any communication tools, including radio, telephone, television or the Internet.” 20.     On 1 July 2011 the applicant was charged with embezzlement, fraud and failure to comply with a court order. 21 .     On 20 and 30 December 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court extended his house arrest on the same grounds. It also found that he might have hidden a debt document important for the criminal case. 22.     On 6 March 2012 the applicant was charged with additional counts of embezzlement, fraud and failure to comply with a court order. 23 .     On 4 and 10 April 2012 the District Court extended the house arrest, stating that the circumstances of the case had not changed and that there was no reason to change the preventive measure, that the investigation was not finished, that the applicant was accused of several crimes, that he had been put on the wanted list at the beginning of the investigation, that he had not appeared at the police station several times and could hence abscond, that he had not studied all the case materials, that it was necessary to conduct several forensic examinations and that he could interfere with the investigation. The court also held, referring to witness statements in the case file, that some witnesses were afraid that the applicant could put pressure on them. 24.     The Moscow City Court dismissed appeals by the applicant against his house arrest. 25.     On 8 June 2012 the investigator changed the preventive measure from house arrest to an undertaking not to leave town, stating that the applicant had appeared for questioning and that there was no indication that he would destroy evidence, put pressure on witnesses or in any other way interfere with the investigation. 26.     On 7 October 2013 the District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Mr Botnaryuk, application no. 75089/13 27.     On 24 December 2012 the applicant was charged with falsifying evidence and perjury. 28 .     On 28 December 2012 the Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic placed him under house arrest, stating that there was enough evidence of his involvement in the crime and that house arrest was justified by the gravity of the charges. The court also established, based on witness statements, that the applicant had tried to find out what the witnesses were going to say during questioning. The court concluded that the applicant’s contact with the witnesses must be prohibited. At the same time, as he was not prone to disorderly conduct, had a permanent place of residence, had children, had a lawful source of income, had never been prosecuted under the Code of Administrative Offences or on any other grounds, there was no reason to place him in custody. The court imposed the following prohibitions on the applicant: “- leaving his permanent place of residence at the address ... unless there is an emergency, a need to see a doctor or to appear on summons; - communicating using any communication tools or the Internet; - communicating with witnesses, suspects and co-accused involved in the criminal proceedings against [the applicant], except for [the mother of his child] living with him.” 29 .     On 19 February 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court extended the house arrest, stating that the applicant was accused of a serious crime and could interfere with the investigation and influence witnesses. The court added that the case was complex and that it was necessary to obtain an expert opinion, question witnesses and the accused, and bring final charges. The police had found bullets for a hunting gun at his home. The court concluded that the applicant could reoffend and refused to replace the house arrest with an undertaking not to leave town, stating that there was no reason to change the existing preventive measure. 30 .     On 30 April 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court extended the house arrest on the grounds that the applicant was charged with several crimes, could put pressure on witnesses and his co-accused, could interfere with the investigation, that the circumstances of the case had not changed and that there was no reason to change the preventive measure. 31 .     On 24 June 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court extended the house arrest by a collective decision, stating that the applicant was accused of serious crimes and that the circumstances of the case had not changed. It also held that the applicant’s co-defendant, Ms M., should remain on an undertaking not to leave town. The court dismissed, without any explanation, a request by the applicant for release on an undertaking not to leave town, and his argument that he could not work and earn money for his family while under house arrest. 32 .     On 17 July and 20 August 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court extended the house arrest without giving any reasons. 33.     Appeals by the applicant against the house arrest orders were dismissed. 34.     In December 2013 the applicant applied to have some of the conditions of his house arrest altered to allow him to attend church every Sunday, go for a three-hour walk every day and talk to his lawyers on the telephone. 35 .     On 25 December 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court dismissed his application on the grounds that the circumstances of the case had not changed. 36.     Following an appeal by the applicant, on 31 January 2014 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld this decision. 37.     On 10 February 2014 the Vorkuta Town Court convicted the applicant of falsifying evidence, misrepresentation and illegal possession of firearms. He was sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment. Mr Isaichev, application no. 1327/16 38.     On 2 April 2015 the applicant was charged with giving bribes. 39 .     On 3 April 2015 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow placed him under house arrest on the grounds that he was charged with a serious crime, could threaten witnesses (his subordinates), and could abscond, destroy evidence or in any other way interfere with the investigation. The court also referred to his character, without specifying any details, and imposed the following prohibitions on him: “- leaving his permanent place of residence at the address ... without the investigator’s consent; - communicating using communication tools except for emergency calls in the event of medical necessity or an accident; - communicating with the parties to this criminal case; - sending and receiving correspondence without the investigator’s consent.” 40 .     On 20 May 2015 the Presnenskiy District Court extended house arrest in respect of the applicant and his accomplices, referring to the seriousness of the offence, the flight risk and stating that they could interfere with the investigation. 41 .     On 23 September and 25 November 2015 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s house arrest on the same grounds. The court also noted that the investigation was still ongoing, that there was a need to collect evidence, that the case was complex and some further investigative acts were required, and that the applicant would study the case file. 42 .     On 25 January, 18 March, 21 April, 24 and 26 May, and 19 August 2016 the Cheremushkinskiy and Gagarinskiy District Courts of Moscow extended the house arrest, stating that the case was complex and it was necessary to conduct investigative acts, that the applicant was accused of a serious crime, could abscond, destroy evidence, put pressure on other parties to the proceedings or in any other way interfere with investigation, and that he had to study the case materials. The court held that any other less strict preventive measure would not ensure the applicant’s proper behaviour. 43.     The Moscow City Court dismissed appeals by the applicant against his house arrest. 44 .     On 22 August 2016 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court remitted the case to the prosecutor and extended the applicant’s house arrest without indicating any reasons. 45 .     On 10 March 2017 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow placed the applicant under an undertaking to appear. 46.     On 8 August 2017 the Timiryazevskiy District Court convicted the applicant of bribery and gave him a five-year suspended sentence and a fine. Mr Nikolenko, application no. 14206/16 47.     On 8 August 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of corruption. 48 .     On 9 August 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok remanded him in custody, stating that he had refused to plead guilty and that considering the gravity of charges, he could abscond and put pressure on unspecified witnesses. It also held that it was impossible to place him under house arrest because he could not be controlled by the authorities and might hinder the collection of evidence. 49 .     On 4 October 2013 the court changed the preventive measure in respect of the applicant to house arrest, stating that he was charged with a serious crime, that there was evidence of his involvement in the crime, and that the investigation was not finished. The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the investigator’s arguments that the applicant had relatives in Ukraine and could therefore abscond, and that he could interfere with investigative acts. It further established that as the applicant had a job, a family, a permanent place of residence and was characterised as a good person, house arrest was an adequate preventive measure in the circumstances of the case. The applicant was prohibited from: “1. ...leaving [his] permanent place of residence ... without the investigator’s consent, except in the event of the need to undergo urgent medical treatment after notifying the investigator or to be hospitalised; 2. Communicating with anybody except his lawyers, next-of-kin living with him and doctors without the investigator’s consent. 3. Sending and receiving correspondence, except for correspondence necessary for exercising the rights of the suspect or accused in criminal proceedings. 4. Communicating using any tools, except for communication with his lawyers and the investigator.” 50 .     Between December 2013 and July 2017 the Leninskiy District Court and Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Primorye Region extended the house arrest, stating that the applicant was charged with a serious crime, and that he could abscond, threaten witnesses using his friends working in the police, commit crimes and interfere with the investigation. The applicant suffered from brain ischemia and was being treated in hospital as an outpatient. However, there was no reason to replace house arrest with another less restrictive preventive measure. 51.     On 9 February 2016 the Mikhaylovskiy District Court dismissed a request by the applicant for release on the same grounds. 52.     The Primorye Regional Court dismissed appeals by the applicant against his pre-trial detention and house arrest. 53.     On 14 August 2017 the Mikhaylovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of corruption and sentenced him to four years and four months’ imprisonment and a fine. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK, PRACTICE AND INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION AND HOUSE ARREST 54.     For the relevant provisions on pre-trial detention, see Zherebin v.   Russia (no. 51445/09, §§   16 ‑ 25, 24 March 2016). 55.     Pursuant to Articles 97 and 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”), which contain general provisions on preventive measures, when deciding on a preventive measure the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “sufficient grounds to believe” that a suspect or an accused would abscond, reoffend, threaten witnesses or other parties to the proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice (Article 97). It must also take into account the seriousness of the charges, information on his or her character, profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99). 56.     Article 107 § 1 of the CCrP provides that house arrest can be ordered by a court if it is impossible to impose a less restrictive preventive measure and implies detention of a suspect or an accused at his or her place of residence, subject to some restrictions and prohibitions and supervision by a competent body. 57.     House arrest can last for up to two months. If it is impossible to complete the investigation within two months and there are no grounds for changing or cancelling the preventive measure, the court may extend the house arrest (Article 107 § 2). 58.     Under Article 107 §§ 7 and 8, when ordering house arrest, the court may impose on a suspect or an accused various prohibitions as regards, in particular, (1) leaving his or her place of residence, (2) communicating with certain persons, (3) receiving and sending correspondence, and (4)   using communication devices or the Internet. Depending on the seriousness of the charges and circumstances of the case, the court may impose all these prohibitions and restrictions or only some of them. The court may change the restrictions imposed at the request of a suspect or an accused, his or her counsel, legal representative or the investigator. The right of a suspect or an accused to call an ambulance, the police or the rescue service in the event of an accident, as well as the supervising body or the investigator, cannot be restricted. He or she must inform the supervising body of every such call. 59.     Article 107 § 9 provides that an order for house arrest must stipulate how to apply the preventive measure (place of residence, term, when a suspect or an accused may leave his or her place of residence, restrictions and prohibitions, places he or she may go). 60.     A suspect or an accused placed under house arrest is under the responsibility of a supervising authority. If he or she violates the restrictions or prohibitions imposed by the court, the house arrest may be changed to a more restrictive preventive measure such as pre-trial detention (Article   107   §§ 10 and 14). DOMESTIC CASE-LAW AND PRACTICE Domestic case-law 61 .     In Ruling no. 41 of 19 December 2013 on the practice of the application by the courts of preventive measures in the form of remand in custody, bail and house arrest, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held that the procedure for ordering house arrest was analogous to the procedure for ordering remand in custody. 62.     When determining restrictions and prohibitions applied to a suspect or an accused, the court will take into account his or her character. The court cannot impose restrictions and prohibitions which are not prescribed by the CCrP. 63.     In its decision ordering house arrest, the court must indicate the period of house arrest and its end date (paragraphs 36, 39 and 41 of the Ruling). 64.     On 11 June 2020 the above Ruling was amended by the Ruling No. 7 on amendments to various rulings of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Russia. The Supreme Court held that when choosing the preventive measure in the form of house arrest or detention on remand, the court should consider the possibility to apply the bail. If the court arrives to the conclusion that the bail on its own is not enough, it may in addition impose on a suspect or an accused the obligation to comply with one or several prohibitions and indicate in its decision the reasons for imposing these prohibitions. The court must also indicate in its decision on preventive measure why the application of the bail is impossible. The court must discuss with the parties to the proceedings the possibility to apply prohibitions instead of other more restrictive measures such as detention on remand or house arrest and indicate why it is impossible to impose such prohibitions as alternative preventive measure. 65 .     In Ruling no. 27-P of 6 December 2011, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reiterated the Court’s case-law to the effect that the difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (paragraph 2 of the Ruling). Having analysed the relevant provisions of the CCrP governing house arrest and detention, taken together, as well as the nature of the restrictions applied to an individual in the event of house arrest, the Constitutional Court found, in particular, that house arrest, like pre-trial detention, implied the compulsory isolation of an accused or a suspect from society, in a limited space, and preventing the person from working, moving freely and communicating with other persons. Thus, in view of the restrictions suffered, house arrest involved a direct restriction of a person’s right to physical liberty and security. It held, therefore, that the procedural guarantees in the event of house arrest should be the same as those applicable to pre-trial detention (paragraph 3 of the Ruling). 66 .     According to the Ruling of the Supreme Court of Russia of 1   February 2011 No. 1 “On the case-law relating to criminal liability and punishment of minors”, a minor can be remanded in custody only in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest possible period of time. When considering an investigator’s request to place a minor in custody, a court should check whether there are grounds for detention and whether it is possible to apply other less restrictive preventive measure. A minor can be remanded in custody only if he or she is suspected of a grave or very grave crime and only if the detention order refers to the pertinent facts and law. By virtue of Article 423 of the CCrP, when remanding a minor in custody the courts must consider the possibility to place him or her under supervision of parents or other persons of trust. Statistics concerning pre-trial detention and house arrest 67 .     The information submitted by the Government and the statistical data available on the website of the Courts Administration Office at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (www.cdep.ru) as regards the application of preventive measures, including pre-trial detention, house arrest and bail can be summarised as follows.         Request for a preventive measure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015   Applications for remand in custody 208,416 165,323 152,028 147,784 146,993 146,354 153,159 Of those, granted 187,793 148,689 135,850 132,923 133,311 133,657 140,457 Applications for extension of pre-trial detention 212,819 185,891 180,315 198,775 206,968 210,286 229,787 Of those, granted 208,760 182,060 176,840 185,234 198,450 207,363 226,875 Applications for house arrest 164 754 1,539 3,030 3,455 3,783 5,294 Of those, granted 146 668 1,346 2,714 3,086 3,333 4,676 House arrest in lieu of another preventive measure n/a n/a n/a 1,731 2,683 2,632 3,133 Applications for bail n/a 764 491 336 238 256 220 Of those, granted 674 629 438 275 198 225 189 Bail in lieu of another preventive measure 598 n/a n/a 398 367 327 199   Request for a preventive measure 2016 2017 2018 2019 Applications for remand in custody 133,882 125,129 113,184 104,866 Of those, granted 121,796 113,269 102,205 94,633 Applications for extension of pre-trial detention 227,136 213,582 215,304 216,009 Of those, granted 223,306 209,826 211,285 211,248 Applications for house arrest 6,857 7,339 7,170 6,966 Of those, granted 6,056 6,442 6,329 6,037 House arrest in lieu of another preventive measure 3,611 4,176 3,918 3,504 Applications for bail 269 169 122 90 Of those, granted 229 133 108 77 Bail in lieu of another preventive measure 189 163 138 86 COMPENSATION FOR UNLAWFUL DETENTION 68 .     Article 133 of the CCrP governs the exercise of the “right to rehabilitation”, which is, in essence, the restoration of the person to the status quo ante following a person’s acquittal or the discontinuation of criminal proceedings. This right includes the right to compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and reinstatement of employment, pension, housing and other rights. 69.     A court may hold the tortfeasor liable for non-pecuniary damage suffered by an individual as a result of actions infringing his or her personal non-property rights, such as the right to personal integrity and the right to freedom of movement (Articles 150 and 151 of the Civil Code). Non ‑ pecuniary damage must be compensated, irrespective of whether the tortfeasor is at fault in the event of, in particular, an unlawful conviction, prosecution or unlawful application of a preventive measure in the form of placement in custody (Article 1100 of the Civil Code). 70 .     Article 1070 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that the damage caused to an individual as a result of an unlawful conviction, unlawful institution of criminal proceedings, unlawful application of a preventive measure in the form of remand in custody or an undertaking not to leave the town, or an unlawful administrative sanction in the form of detention or community service must be compensated in full, irrespective of whether the officials or agencies are at fault. Article 1070 § 2 clarifies that the damage suffered by an individual in the framework of the administration of justice must be compensated, provided that the judge’s guilt has been established in a final criminal conviction. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE 71.     For relevant documents of the Council of Europe regarding pre-trial detention and alternative preventive measures, see Zherebin (cited above, §§   27-31). 72 .     On 3-5 December 2019 at the 1362nd meeting the Ministers’ Deputies welcomed the new measures adopted by the Russian authorities in respect of the execution of the Court’s judgments included in the Klyakhin group (application no. 46082/99). As regards general measures, the Deputies: “9.     noted with interest the general measures adopted by the authorities so far to address the problem of the failure of the domestic courts to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify continuing detention on remand, including the Supreme Court’s research and overviews of the European Court’s practice, and thematic Ministerial and Inter-Ministerial meetings by the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of the Interior and the General Prosecutor’s Office; noted as well different awareness-raising activities, including with the participation of the Council of Europe; and encouraged the authorities to continue with the adoption of other measures of this type; 10.     welcomed the fact that the number of remand prisoners decreased by some 14% in 2016-2018, principally because investigators submit fewer requests for initial detention on remand and extensions, yet invited the authorities to explain why the level of approval of investigators’ requests by judges remains so high (for example, an approval rate of about 97% in respect of requests for extension of detention on remand); 11.     welcomed the most recent legislative reforms amending Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resolved the problem of unclarity of the law regulating extensions of detention for the purposes of studying the case-file, as well as obliged the investigators to better substantiate their requests for detention on remand, and encouraged the authorities to continue with the incorporation of Article 5 principles...; 12.     noted with interest the introduction of the restraining order as another alternative measure to detention and expressed the hope that it will be widely used in practice; 13.     as to the lengthy appeal proceedings and the absence of an enforceable right to receive compensation for violations of Article 5, invited the authorities to provide information about the measures planned or taken to address them...”. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 73.     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 74.     The applicants complained that they had been detained during the investigation and trial and under house arrest notwithstanding the absence of relevant and sufficient reasons. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads 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.” Admissibility 75.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 76.     The applicants considered that their pre-trial detention and house arrest had not been necessary or justified by their behaviour or social status. The domestic courts had automatically extended the preventive measures in respect of them using stereotyped reasoning, while the prosecution had failed to submit any information that would prevent the courts from releasing them during the investigation and trial. Furthermore, they had not properly considered applying an alternative preventive measure to ensure the proper administration of justice. 77.     The Government contended that the decisions to place the applicants in pre-trial detention and under house arrest and to extend these preventive measures had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons, such as the gravity of the offence, the possibility of absconding or reoffending, the complexity of the case and the risk of the applicants’ interfering with the criminal investigation. Genera