CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 juillet 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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; 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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:3pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF ZHAMBULOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 75115/17 and 11 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 July 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zhambulov 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 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.     Some 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos. 2957/19 and 62921/19 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and 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. 14.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     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. 17.     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 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, admissible,   and the remainder of applications nos. 2957/19 and 62921/19 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 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 28 July 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   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]     75115/17 11/10/2017 Kuanyshpay Zhambulovich ZHAMBULOV 1977 10/02/2016 to 06/12/2017 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Omsk, Omsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 9   month(s) and 27 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 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - 27/03/2017 the detention was extended while the applicant was hospitalised; 05/05/2017 the applicant received the extension order and lodged the request for a re-instatement of a time-limit; 18/05/2017 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Omsk refused to re-instate the time-limit. However, on 14/07/2017 the time-limit was re-instated; on 16/08/2017 Omsk Regional Court ceased the appeal proceedings as the pre-trial detention order has already expired. 2,500     2957/19 14/07/2019 Ilyas Elmirovich SHARIFOV 1989 14/05/2017 to 15/02/2020     13/05/2021 to 30/08/2021 Industrialnyy District Court of Izhevsk; Balezinskiy District Court of the Udmurtiya Republic; Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 2 day(s)   3 month(s) and 18 day(s) failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   3,100     8868/19 02/02/2019 Azat Razifovich FAZLIYEV 1974 27/07/2016 to 06/06/2019 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,000     10160/19 15/10/2018 Radik Rinatovich KARIMOV 1974 26/07/2016 to 15/04/2019 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 21 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   2,900     62921/19 23/01/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich KOSAREV 1988 09/08/2018 pending Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 3   year(s) and 8   month(s) and 6 day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed   3,800     4444/20 05/12/2019 Ilya Andreyevich VASHUKOV 1986 26/05/2015 pending Severodvinsk Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region; Arkhangelsk Regional Court More than 6   year(s) and 10   month(s) and 20 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 - Detention order of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court of 05/12/2019 was upheld on appeal by the 2nd Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction on 03/02/2020. 5,500     6553/20 14/01/2020 Sergey Grigoryevich DANILICHEV 1976 24/01/2019 to 24/09/2020 Volzhskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Region Court 1 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 1 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   1,900     10401/20 06/02/2020 Dmitriy Viktorovich KOSTYGOV 1981 03/06/2019 to 30/09/2020 Cherepovets Town Court of the Vologda Region, Vologda Regional Court 1 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 28 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lack of speediness of review by the Second Court of Appeal of general jurisdiction, St Petersburg on 13/12/2019 of the order of the Vologda Regional Court dated 31/10/2019 on extension of the applicant’s detention. 1,800     22087/20 26/04/2020 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich MAKSIMOV 1990 27/04/2017 to 26/06/2020 Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic 3 year(s) and 2   month(s)   collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,200   22686/20 16/04/2020 Viktor Nikolayevich ZAYTSEV 1983 30/01/2019 pending Moscow City Court, First General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal More than 3   year(s) and 2   month(s) and 16 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 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   3,300   35050/20 11/08/2020 Aleksandr Andreyevich LUKYANOV 1993 22/02/2017 pending The Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 5   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 24 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, 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   5,000   37017/20 03/07/2020 Olimdzhon Ziyevuddinovich SAIDOV 1996 26/04/2019 pending Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow More than 2   year(s) and 11   month(s) and 20 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.