CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s89DB49F5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 50/22 and 17 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 April 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Surov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2024, 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. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). 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. 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.     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 Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 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), 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; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; 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 the 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 4 April 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   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]     50/22 05/12/2021 David Valeryevich SUROV 1999 Yazykova Natalya Aleksandrovna Maykop 11/03/2021   - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Maykop Town Court of the Adygeya Republic, Supreme Court of the Adygeya Republic 1 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 6 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. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 1,700     2550/22 15/12/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV 1977 Tseytlina Olga Pavlovna St Petersburg 22/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 26 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   St   Petersburg City Court, 02/08/2021, appeals lodged on 04/08/2021 and 10/08/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 15/09/2021;   St   Petersburg City Court, 28/10/2021, appeals lodged on 28/10/2021 and 29/10/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 25/11/2021; 2,800     6597/22 01/04/2022 Eldar Afrailovich GUSEYNOV 1986     21/03/2016 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Regional Court 6 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 27 day(s)   collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   5,000     8488/22 22/01/2022 Timur Rimovich RAKHIMYANOV 1992     23/05/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 4 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 25 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 29/06/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 21/07/2021 4,900     10421/22 01/02/2022 Aleksandr Sergeyevich RODIONOV 1959 Volkova Yelena Viktorovna Moscow 27/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 21 day(s)   collective detention orders; 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   1,500     12880/22 31/01/2022 Pavel Vladimirovich NARKEVICH 1964 Sayevets Igor Yuryevich Moscow 08/07/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Krasnogorsk Town Court, Moscow Regional Court 1 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 9 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; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnogorsk Town Court, from 23/08/2021 to 20/10/2021 9,750     13141/22 02/02/2022 Sergey Anatolyevich TOROP 1961 Khoroshev Ivan Aleksandrovich Krasnoyarsk 22/09/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 26 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 examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; collective detention orders       2,000     13251/22 02/02/2022 Ilya Olegovich SNIGIREV 1999 Dobryanskiy Mark Vladimirovich Perm 30/07/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Perm, Perm Regional Court 1 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 18 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   1,200     13513/22 08/02/2022 Valentin Mikhaylovich SHCHUKIN 1955 Kirillov Yuriy Mikhaylovich Moscow 03/10/2021 to 16/09/2022 Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Omutninskiy District Court of the Kirov Region 11 month(s) and 14 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 of the reasons employed by the courts     1,000   14129/22 10/02/2022 Eleonora Eduardovna CHECHENOVA 1992 Anzarov Zaurbek Anatolyevich Kislovodsk 11/02/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, Supreme Court of the the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic 2 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 6 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention     2,800   14403/22 21/02/2022 Damir Gazinurovich KHASANSHIN 1997     01/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Aviastroitelnyy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 16 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   2,400   15620/22 25/02/2022 Yevgeniy Ilyich SKATOV 1975     24/12/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 1 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 24 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   1,900   16597/22 01/03/2022 Lachyn Yusif Ogly MURADOV 1988 Grigoryev Aleksey Valentinovich Vyborg 19/11/2020 to 19/01/2022 Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court 1 year(s) and 2   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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage on numerous occasions during court hearings at the Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region, from 20/11/2020 to 19/01/2022 9,750   17349/22 25/02/2022 Aleksandr Vladimirovich ROZOCHKIN 1989     16/11/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow, Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Supreme Court of Russia 2 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 1 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders   3,100   18331/22 15/03/2022 Anton Aleksandrovich KOLOSKOV 1983     21/03/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 27 day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial   1,600   19935/22 11/03/2022 Konstantin Vasilyevich KHOROBRYY 1981     09/11/2014 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court 7 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 8 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders; 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:   Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021, appeal lodged on 27/12/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 03/02/2022 5,500   34008/22 07/02/2022 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich VYSOKIKH 1966     11/12/2014 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court 7 year(s) and 9   month(s) and 6 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; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 14/10/2021 5,500   34033/22 25/06/2022 Artem Gennadyevich PROTOPOPOV 1982 Olgerdt Oksana Gennadyevna Moscow 19/08/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 29   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   1,100     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.