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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 KULAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 26200/20 and 8 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 Kulakov 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 unreasonable. 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, §§ 154-58, 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), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; and Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016, relating to the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   26200/20, 38625/20 and 10466/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined the complaints 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. 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 14.     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.” 15.     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. 16.     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.   26200/20, 38625/20 and 10466/21 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 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]     26200/20 30/06/2020 Andrey Nikolayevich KULAKOV 1974 Artem Borisovich Sarbashev Moscow 31/05/2019 to 27/10/2021 Serpukhovo Town Court, Moscow Regional Court 2 year(s) and 4 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   2,500     28025/20 13/06/2020 Sergey Nikolayevich IVANCHENKO 1976 Pavel Vasilyevich Vekshin Arkhangelsk 09/11/2014 pending Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk; Arkhangelsk Regional Court; 2nd General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal More than 7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   5,000     28823/20 01/06/2020 Yuriy Arkadyevich IVSHIN 1964 Dmitriy Konstantinovich Sobolev Borovichi 20/03/2019 pending Borovichskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region, Novgorod Regional Court More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 13 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   3,500     38625/20 24/08/2020 Anatoliy Tikhonovich POPKOV 1963 Yuriy Mikhaylovich Nikolayev Belgorod 18/10/2019 pending Basmanniy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Supreme Court of Russia More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 15 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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal of 16/09/2020 against the detention order of 15/09/2020 was examined on 12/10/2020 (26 days); Appeal of 10/01/2021 against the detention order of 25/12/2020 was examined on 04/02/2021 (25 days);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings – on 03/03/2020 by final judgment of the Sverdlovsk District Court of Belgorod the applicant was convicted of an administrative offence for having violated the rules of storage of firearms. 3,900     2099/21 06/10/2020 Igor Olegovich MARTYANOV 1985     10/08/2017 to 25/08/2020 Moskovskiy District Court of Kazan, Leninskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s) and 16 day(s)   collective detention orders; as the case progressed: 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     10466/21 06/02/2021 Aleksandr Andreyevich MERKULOV 1997 Leonid Leonidovich Krikun St Petersburg 06/07/2020 to 01/12/2020 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court 4 month(s) and 26 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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on several occasions from 02/09/2020 to 05/11/2020,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against detention order of 07/07/2020 was considered on 10/09/2020. 9,750     17030/21 05/03/2021 Georgiy Vladimirovich LADARIYA 1979     15/01/2015 pending Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction More than 7 year(s) and 7 month(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 28/12/2020 by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court, was examined on 04/02/2021 by the Second Appellate Court. 5,500     20161/21 17/03/2021 Ruslan Rustamovich MAMATOV 1999 Pavel Nikolayevich Zubitskiy Moscow 09/08/2020 pending Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 14 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 06/10/2020, lodged on 09/10/2020, was examined on 02/11/2020 (24 days later). The applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 05/11/2020, lodged on 07/11/2020, was examined on 09/12/2020 (32 days later). 2,500     23482/21 06/04/2021 Dmitriy Grigoryevich ZARYUTO 1992     10/06/2019 pending Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court More than 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 24 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against detention order of 13/10/2020, Kalininskiy Court of St Petersburg, was considered on 18/11/2020, St Petersburg City Court. 3,700     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.