CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; 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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .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 TRENCHENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 65143/19 and 14 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 23 June 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Trenchenkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2022, 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 principally 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 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 unreasonably 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.   1815/20, 14099/20 and 15257/20, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to detention in a metal cage during court hearings; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees and lack of speedy review of detention matters. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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.” 13.     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, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 14.     The Court further 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 that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three   months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three   months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 June 2022, 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]     65143/19 10/12/2019 Vyacheslav Yuryevich TRENCHENKOV 1961 Zmanovskiy Nikolay Vitalyevich Irkutsk 25/04/2018 to 28/05/2020 Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court 2   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 4   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   2,200     1815/20 27/12/2019 Vladimir Vasilyevich SHEVCHENKO 1968 Meleshko Aleksandr Valeryevich St   Petersburg 15/03/2018 to 19/11/2019 Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court 1   year(s) and 8   month(s) and 5   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art.   5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - order of 26/07/2019, appeal on 09/09/2019,   Art.   3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - on 19/11/2019 in the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St   Petersburg,   Art.   3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in prison vans from 06/06/2018 to 19/11/2019,   Art.   13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 9,750     2178/20 25/12/2019 Valeriy Nikolayevich FEDOTOV 1972 Motovilov Andrey Nikolayevich Omsk 07/03/2019 to 20/01/2020 Kuybishevskiy District Court of Omsk, Omsk Regional Court 10   month(s) and 14   day(s)   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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   1,000     7665/20 20/01/2020 Sergey Petrovich VOLKODAV 1966 Yurunov Pavel Viktorovich Moscow 13/05/2019 pending Basmannyy District Court, Moscow City Court More than 2   year(s) and 11   month(s) and 1   day(s)   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   3,000     8049/20 04/02/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SLIVKO 1983 Kobelev Denis Valeryevich Moscow 02/10/2019 pending Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 2   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 12   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice     2,700     11871/20 13/02/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich PERFILYEV 1975 Kuzmin Aleksey Valeryevich Samara 22/03/2019 pending Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 3   year(s) and 23   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   3,100     12144/20 21/02/2020 Mikhail Sergeyevich KISELEV 1987 Rozhin Roman Aleksandrovich Moscow 22/11/2019 pending Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 2   year(s) and 4   month(s) and 23   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   2,500     13245/20 26/02/2020 Pavel Igorevich KUZNETSOV 1977 Kachalina Yuliya Andreyevna St   Petersburg 31/10/2018 to 07/09/2020 Moscow City Court 1   year(s) and 10   month(s) and 8   day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; white-collar crime charges (bribe)   2,100     14099/20 21/02/2020 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VYDYSH 1976 Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna Moscow 21/06/2018 to 22/07/2020 Rostov-on-Don garrison Military Court, Military Court of the North ‑ Caucasus Circuit 2   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 2   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 Art.   3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in overcrowded vans (either in the common compartment or alone in the glass cubicle) since 22/06/2018; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air,   Art.   13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings,   Art.   3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage during court hearings before the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Military Court since 22/06/2019.       9,750   15257/20 10/03/2020 Abdurakhmon Suleymonovich SOATOV 1990 Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich Moscow 24/08/2019 to 14/09/2020 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1   year(s) and 22   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art.   5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal review of the detention orders of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow of 22/10/2019, 20/11/2019, 18/12/2019 took 30-60   days (appeal decision of the Moscow City Court of 21/11/2019, 16/01/2020, 21/01/2020). 1,600   16646/20 23/03/2020 Sergeyus KHOLCHEVAS 1979 Mazitov Marat Farukovich Moscow 12/06/2018 to 01/09/2020 Moscow City Court 2   year(s) and 2   month(s) and 21   day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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   2,300   17036/20 16/03/2020 Sergey Vyacheslavovich VARFOLOMEYEV 1967 Lugantsev Konstantin Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 25/04/2018 to 25/12/2019 Krasnodar Regional Court, Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi 1   year(s) and 8   month(s) and 1   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   1,900   19572/20 08/05/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ZAKHARCHENKO 1990 Shuravina Olga Vladislavovna Krasnodar 21/11/2018 to 19/06/2020 Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court 1   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 30   day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   1,700   19809/20 02/04/2020 Sergey Fedorovich RUBEZHNOY 1974 Koshev Vladimir Vladimirovich Stavropol 26/06/2018 pending Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court More than 3   year(s) and 9   month(s) and 19   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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed; 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   4,000   20533/20 21/04/2020 Savva Usementayevich ALEKSEYEV 1979 Yarlykova Yelena Nikolayevna Moscow 05/07/2017 to 19/02/2020 Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2   year(s) and 7   month(s) and 15   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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   2,800   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.