European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KOLKUTIN v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 34942/05)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

12 July 2016

 

 

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




In the case of Kolkutin v. Russia,

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

          Helen Keller, President,
          Johannes Silvis,
          Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 June 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 34942/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Igor Aleksandrovich Kolkutin (“the applicant”), on 1 September 2005.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms S. Davydova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  On 2 July 2009 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chita.

5.  On 2 September 2004 the applicant was arrested on the charges of fraud and forgery of official documents. On 4 September 2004 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court reasoned as follows:

“The evidence collected ... incriminated [the applicant] ... in a serious crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding ten years. ... The court takes note of the [applicant’s] character. However, ... it considers that, if at large, [the applicant] might put pressure on victims and witnesses or otherwise interfere with administration of justice or continue criminal activities, Accordingly, ... the court considers it necessary to remand [the applicant] in custody.”

6.  On 11 November 2004 the Chita Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 September 2004 on appeal.

7.  The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial. The court extended his pre-trial detention on several occasions reiterating, in substance, the reasoning employed by the District Court on 2 September 2004.

8.  On 4 June 2007 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

9.  The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had not been based on sufficient reasons and that it had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“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.”

A.  Admissibility

10.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

11.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention had been in strict compliance with national legislation and the Convention. The authorities had relied on relevant and sufficient reasons when deciding to detain him.

12.  The applicant maintained his complaint.

13.  The Court has already examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on a large number of occasions. It found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant’s detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other authorities, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/0417 June 2010; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).

14.  Having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Accordingly, the Court considers that by failing to address specific facts or consider alternative preventive measures, the authorities extended the applicants’ detention on grounds which, although “relevant”, cannot be regarded as “sufficient” to justify the applicant’s being remanded in custody for approximately two years and nine months. In those circumstances it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with “special diligence”.

15.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

II.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

16.  Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention about unfairness and length of the criminal proceedings against him. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  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.”

18.  The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Declares the complaint concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

 

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                         Helen Keller
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President