CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 BRITVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2113/20 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 October 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Britvin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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.     In applications nos. 22998/20, 35772/20 and 47030/20, 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and   43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during the court hearings; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5   others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport; and Pavlova v. Russia , no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicant in application no. 22998/20 further complained about conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies in this connection. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 13.     In application no.   47030/20 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application 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, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints in application no. 22998/20 about conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies in this connection, and dismisses the remainder of application no.   47030/20 as 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 13 October 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]     2113/20 19/12/2019 Artem Andreyevich BRITVIN 1989     06/06/2018 to 28/10/2019 Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders   1,500     5803/20 10/01/2020 Fedor Aleksandrovich KOZIN 1965 Sergey Anatolyevich Kutuzov Orel 16/11/2018 pending Zavodskoy District Court of Orel; Orel Regional Court; 1st Appeal Court of the General Jurisdiction; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 20 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts   3,900     5844/20 13/01/2020 Sergey Vasilyevich SHEVERDA 1975 Irina Borisovna Frenkel Irkutsk 05/06/2019 pending Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court More than 3 year(s) and 2 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   3,200     22998/20 01/04/2020 Maksim Aleksandrovich LAPSHIN 1991 Tatyana Viktorovna Sukhareva Moscow 12/02/2020 pending Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s)   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 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transport by van; numerous occasions since 13/02/2020; overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, during the transport the applicant’s head is covered with black bag;   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - metal cage in the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; numerous hearings since 13/02/2020. 9,750     35772/20 15/07/2020 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich PILIPENKO 1982     09/09/2017 to 21/04/2021 Kargasokskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region; Tomsk Regional Court 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 13 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention order of the Kargasokskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region of 22/10/2019 was examined on appeal by the Tomsk Regional Court on 23/01/2020. 4,300     40275/20 27/08/2020 Dmitriy Vladimirovich SINYAVSKIY 1973 Sergey Aleksandrovich Valiulin Vladivostok 08/05/2020 pending Primorye Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 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     2,300     40846/20 15/08/2020 Yan Valeryevich NAKHAPETOV 1976 Yuliya Fedotova Yekaterinburg 10/12/2019 pending Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 26 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, failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   2,800     41360/20 20/08/2020 Aleksandr Viktorovich POLYAKOV 1974 Dmitriy Nikolayevich Dmitriyev Irkutsk 19/02/2020 pending Irkutsk Garrison Military Court, Second Eastern District Military Court More than 2 year(s) and 5 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 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   2,600     46678/20 24/09/2020 Sergey Vyacheslavovich DRUZHININ 1977     23/01/2020 pending Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 day(s)   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   2,700   47030/20 08/10/2020 Marat Iskanderovich GALIASKAROV 1986     25/02/2020 to 06/12/2021 Aviastroitelnyy District Court of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-2, Republic of Tatarstan - the applicant requested visits by his family (wife, daughter, parents) on several occasions from the investigating authorities and domestic courts to no avail. Latest refusal of the court - 08/02/2021;   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of family visits in detention. 4,550   4351/21 21/12/2020 Ilya Aleksandrovich MAKARENKO 1979     03/03/2020 pending Yessentuki Town Court of Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 5 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, failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   2,600     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.