CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 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 } .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 } .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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; 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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .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 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF FATTAKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 51551/18 and 15 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 April 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Fattakhov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 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 unreasonably long. 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; 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; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees . 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Articles 9 and 13 of the Convention about the restrictions on freedom of religion in prisons and lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v.   Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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 these applications 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 unreasonably lengthy 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 that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Articles 9 and 13 of the Convention; 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 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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]     51551/18 20/10/2018 Ruslan Vakilevich FATTAKHOV 1980     04/02/2015 to 30/07/2018 Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court, 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand; collective detention orders Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport between 06/02/2015 - 30/07/2018; van, holding cells at the detention facility and the courthouse; the applicant transported on numerous occasions, transport between the detention facility and the courthouse pending criminal proceedings, overcrowding; space <0.3 sq. m. 4,700     4701/19 09/01/2019 Yuliya Yuryevna MASLOVA 1975     19/06/2018 to 18/09/2018 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court 3 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; no limit to detention set out by the courts     Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk, on 01-03/08/2018,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 8,000     12275/19 14/02/2019 Konstantin Valentinovich REMIZOV 1979 Fedosimov Boris Aleksandrovich Moscow 17/09/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Taganskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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   4,000     43804/21 31/08/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich PIPKO 1986 Krylov Artem Aleksandrovich Moscow 20/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 235 Garrison Military Court, 2nd Western Circuit Military Court 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 28 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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   1,500     49125/21 04/10/2021 Ilya Naumovich GAVRILOV 1970 Belova Yekaterina Borisovna Moscow 07/02/2020 - 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, First Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 10 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   2,800     51526/21 12/10/2021 Aleksandr Arturovich BEKHER 1975 Tarasova Yekaterina Moscow 22/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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   2,100     52461/21 11/08/2021 Anatoliy Viktorovich SKORNYAKOV 1988     16/02/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, 17/02/2018 - 14/07/2021,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 29/04/2021, appeal decision by the St   Petersburg City Court, on 24/06/2021 9,750     53/22 06/12/2021 Denis Aleksandrovich SHIRYAYEV 1979 Stepanova Yevgeniya Igorevna Moscow 17/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of   Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(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; collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 15/07/2021, appeal lodged on 26/07/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 25/08/2021 2,200     950/22 04/12/2021 Zhasulan Zhetkenovich TULEPBEKOV 1969 Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich Moscow 17/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow Regional Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 15/07/2021, appeal lodged on 18/07/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 25/08/2021 2,200   1441/22 17/12/2021 Oleg Olegovich STEPANOV 1992 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 28/01/2021 to 20/08/2021 Basmanny District Court of Moscow, Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 6 month(s) and 24 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,000   2225/22 23/12/2021 Soltan Mazhitovich KURDANOV 1959 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan 10/03/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Pyatigorsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court, Third Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Stavropol Regional Court on 08/07/2021, appeal lodged on 12/07/2021, appeal decision by the Third Appellate Court on 29/07/2021;   Detention order by the Stavropol Regional Court on 06/10/2021, appeal lodged on 11/10/2021, appeal decision by the Third Appellate Court on 11/11/2021 3,200   25922/22 19/05/2022 Sergey Vladimirovich KUZMENKO 1972 Yarlykova Yelena Nikolayevna Moscow 02/04/2021 - 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 15 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,600   26449/22 16/05/2022 Vladimir Ivanovich SMIRNOV 1974     29/07/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vyborskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   3,200   29892/22 13/05/2022 Vladimir Aleksandrovich TOKAREV 1977 Borzov Aleksandr Fedorovich Moscow 19/01/2022 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022   Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 7 month(s) and 29 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 Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-4 in Moscow, refusal of short-term visits     4,500   33428/22 21/06/2022 Boris Vladimirovich SHCHUROV 1974 Dorzhiyev Ayur Aleksandrovich Moscow 29/10/2020 - 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 10 month(s) and 19 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   2,100   46491/22 31/08/2022 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich DOLGANOV 1985     19/05/2022 - 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 3 month(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; 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 20/05/2022, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 01/07/2022;   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 18/07/2022, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 15/08/2022,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, 20/05/2022 - 15/08/2022 8,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.