CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 février 2023

.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 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF POLISHKAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 51317/17 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 February 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Polishkarov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023, 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. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONs NOs. 52202/17 and 34229/19 UNDER ARTICLE   37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     In application nos. 52202/17 and 34229/19 the Government submitted unilateral declarations which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     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: “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.” 8.     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). 9.     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. 10.     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. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     The applicants in applications nos. 52202/17, 19448/21, 20379/21 and 20401/21 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; and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     The applicant in application no. 19448/21 further complained about other aspects of his 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). 14.     In applications nos.   52202/17 and 34229/19, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 15.     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. 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 16.     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.” 17.     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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Rejects the Government’s request to strike applications nos. 52202/17 and   34229/19 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted; 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.   19448/21 about other aspects of detention and lack of effective remedies in this connection; and dismisses the remainder of applications nos.   52202/17 and 34229/19 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 9 February 2023, 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/house arrest 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]     51317/17 14/07/2017 Igor Vladimirovich POLISHKAROV 1986 Kachev Nikolay Valentinovich Moskow 22/01/2017 to 10/08/2017 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 6 month(s) and 20 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   1,000     52202/17 03/07/2017 Valeriy Andreyevich PESKOV 1989     23/11/2014 to 28/07/2017 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – in the hearings before the Sovetskiy District Court of Tatarstan Republic, between 25/11/2014 and 28/07/2017 9,750     30238/19 27/05/2019 Vasiliy Vasilyevich POPANDOPULO 1971     27/07/2018 to 09/04/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Rostov Regional Court, Krasnodar Regional Court 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   2,900     34229/19 11/06/2019 Natalya Alekseyevna ZHELOBAYEVA 1959 Sernovets Mariya Nikolayevna Moscow 13/09/2016 to 31/03/2021 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 19 day(s)   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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders;   4,700     19448/21 24/05/2021 Sergey Yuryevich SOBOLEV 1980     28/02/2018 to 09/06/2021 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 3 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 13 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; 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – at the hearings before the Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (metal cage), between 01/03/2018 and 14/12/2020,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 19/01/2021, upheld on appeal by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 25/02/2021; Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 13/04/2021, upheld on appeal by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 20/05/2021 9,750     20379/21 19/03/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich OKHONKO 1991     23/09/2020 to 25/05/2021 Kochubeyevskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)   collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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 – in the hearings before the Kochubeyevskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region, on 13/04/2021 9,750     20401/21 19/03/2021 Igor Sergeyevich MAGOMEDOV 1987     23/09/2020 to 25/05/2021 Kochubeyevskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)   collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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 - The applicant complains about placement in a metal cage during the court hearing on 13/04/2021 before the Kochubeyevskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region. 9,750   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.