European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF MAYEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 5403/07, 12097/09, 52460/13, 54286/13, 60823/13 and 6503/14)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

24 November 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

 




In the case of Mayevskiy and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Helena Jäderblom, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,

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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

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. In applications nos. 5403/07 and 12097/09, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  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.

II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The Government submitted unilateral declaration in respect of applications nos. 5403/07 and 52460/13 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 cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

III.  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 read 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.”

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.

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  In applications nos. 5403/07 and 12097/09, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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, as well as paying attention to the Government’s acknowledgement of a violation of the applicant’ rights in the two applications, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, 2 March 2006, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, ECHR 2006-III and Oleynik v. Russia, no. 23559/07, 21 June 2016).

V.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  In application no. 5403/07, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

14.  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.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

16.  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.

17.  The Court 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,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Rejects the Government’s request to strike applications nos. 5403/07 and 52460/13 out of the list;

 

3.  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 the application no. 5403/07 inadmissible;

 

4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;

 

5.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised in applications nos. 5403/07 and 12097/09 under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

 

6.  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.

 

7.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Hasan Bakırcı                                                              Helena Jäderblom
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 name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Period of detention	Length of detention	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	5403/07 07/01/2007	Sergey Yuryevich MAYEVSKIY 26/11/1985	Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow	10/10/2002 to 28/12/2005       09/08/2006 to 19/03/2007	3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 19 day(s)       7 month(s) and 11 day(s)	Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings	5,200
2.	12097/09 30/12/2008	Sergey Georgiyevich YAKUNIN 20/07/1982	Markov Eduard Valentynovych Strasbourg	01/04/2008 to 03/08/2009	1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 3 day(s)	Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention	7,500
3.	52460/13 11/07/2013	Sergey Nikolayevich BONDAR 06/07/1976		16/03/2012 pending	More than 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 8 day(s)		4,700
4.	54286/13 07/08/2013	Marianna Anatolyevna POPOVA 05/06/1966		22/01/2013 pending	More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)		3,900
5.	60823/13 23/09/2013	Gennadiy Yevgenyevich KOLPIKOV 25/09/1957	Sychev Sergey Anatolyevich Moscow	08/11/2012 pending	More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 16 day(s)		4,100
6.	6503/14 07/12/2013	Andrey Aleksandrovich TONKIKH 12/01/1975		23/01/2012 to 04/10/2013	1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 12 day(s)		1,900

 

 




---

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.