(Application no. 13659/06)
30 July 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ananyin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 July 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
1. Theft charge
2. Charges of membership of an armed criminal gang, robbery, extortion, kidnapping, infliction of serious injuries and murder
“As the trial has not yet been completed, it is necessary to extend the defendants’ detention.
The court considers that the gravity of the charges justifies applying to the defendants a preventive measure in the form of detention.
However, in addition to the gravity of the charges - namely the organisation of an armed gang ... and commission of assaults on citizens and murders - carrying a sentence of up to twenty years’ imprisonment for each of the defendants, the court also takes other factors into account.
Thus, the court is entitled to believe that ... application to the defendants of an undertaking not to leave the town or other preventive measures will not exclude the possibility of their absconding or exercising pressure on participants to the proceedings and jurors.
The defendants’ argument that their detention has been excessively long is not in itself sufficient to warrant release.
The defendants have not produced any material showing the existence of factors making impossible [sic] their stay in detention facility conditions.
The court is not convinced by the defendants’ argument that they have not been granted access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for extension. The court has at its disposal only the materials from the criminal case file, which had been studied by the defendants.
The court considers that the grounds for the detention of the defendants, who are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, are relevant and sufficient. Their detention serves the interest of society, as it prevents the commission of similar criminal offences and ensures high-quality and effective examination of the present criminal case.
The criminal case file contains sufficient evidence against each defendant justifying an extension of their detention...”
B. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
– cell no. 189 where the applicant was held from 26 December 2003 to 4 July 2004 and from 26 July to 6 November 2004 measured 22.4 sq. m and housed five to twelve inmates;
– cell no. 13 where the applicant was held from 4 to 26 July 2004 measured 16.4 sq. m and housed seven to eleven inmates;
– punishment cell no. 6 where the applicant was held alone from 6 to 8 November 2004 measured 8.41 sq. m;
– punishment cell no. 9 where the applicant was held alone from 19 to 22 November 2004 measured 8. 41 sq. m;
– cell no. 181 where the applicant was held from 22 November 2004 to 11 July 2005 measured 44.8 sq. m and housed seven to twenty inmates;
– cell no. 200 where the applicant was held from 11 July 2005 to 1 March 2006 measured 22 sq. m and housed seven to twelve inmates;
– cells nos. 193 and 201 where the applicant was held alone or together with another inmate from 1 to 17 March 2006 measured 5 sq. m;
– cell no. 186 where the applicant was held from 17 March to 7 April 2006 measured 22.4 sq. m and housed nine to twelve inmates;
– cell no. 86 where the applicant was held from 7 April to 30 October 2006 measured 19.7 sq. m and housed nine to fourteen inmates;
– cell no. 103 where the applicant was held from 30 October to 30 November 2006 measured 8.2 sq. m and housed five to seven inmates;
– cell no. 30 where the applicant was held from 30 November 2006 to 27 March 2007 and from 30 March to 2 April 2007 measured 18.04 sq. m and housed eight to nineteen inmates;
– cell no. 220 where the applicant was held from 27 to 30 March 2007 measured 27.2 sq. m and housed two to three inmates;
– cell no. 153 where the applicant was held from 2 April to 8 May 2007 measured 15.7 sq. m and housed two to four inmates;
– cell no. 36 where the applicant was held from 8 May to 6 November 2007 measured 33.05 sq. m and housed seventeen to nineteen inmates;
– cell no. 123 where the applicant was held from 6 to 9 November 2007 and from 12 November 2007 to 22 January 2008 measured 17.1 sq. m and housed two to six inmates;
– cell no. 122 where the applicant was held from 9 to 12 November 2007 and from 22 January to 2 April 2008 measures 16.7 sq. m and housed one to four inmates.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
“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.”
1. Arguments by the parties
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
(b) Application to the present case
(i) Period to be taken into consideration
(ii) Reasonableness of the length of the period in issue
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
1. The alleged refusal of access to the materials
2. The alleged failure to examine the appeal of 14 April 2005
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“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.”
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles 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 amount 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 30 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić