European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF CHERNOYVAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 41472/06, 39691/07, 54454/09 and 17977/12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

20 September 2016

 

 

 

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




In the case of Chernoyvan 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 Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2016,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in four applications (nos. 41472/06, 39691/07, 54454/09 and 17977/12) 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 four Russian nationals (“the applicants”). Their full names and dates of birth are listed in the appendix, as are the names of their representatives and the dates their applications were submitted.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  The applicants’ complaints concerning the length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Government, and the remaining parts of the applications were declared inadmissible.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A.  Common facts

4.  The applicants were prosecuted in Russia for various crimes. They were arrested and detained while the crimes were investigated and pending trial. Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts. The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges, the primary grounds being the risk of the applicants’ absconding and interfering with the course of justice. The detention and extension orders used stereotyped formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures.

B.  Facts specific to each application

1.  The case of Mr Chernoyvan

5.  The first applicant was born on 27 April 1961 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Poronaysk, Sakhalin Region. He was arrested on 27 February 2003 on suspicion of sexual assault and was placed in detention. He remained in custody while the crime was investigated and pending trial. On 9 February 2007 the Poronayskiy Town Court of the Sakhalin Region convicted him of sexual assault and sentenced him to six years and nine months’ imprisonment. On 6 June 2007 the Sakhalin Regional Court upheld his conviction on appeal.

2.  The case of Mr Smirnov

6.  The second applicant was born on 29 May 1971 and lived, prior to his conviction, in Samara. He was arrested on 13 March 2007 on suspicion of bribery. On 14 March 2007 he was released. On 29 March 2007 he was arrested again and placed in custody. He was released on 12 September 2007. On 20 May 2008 he was convicted of bribery and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment.

3.  The case of Mr Bobrov

7.  The third applicant was born on 14 October 1979 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Ulybino, Novosibirsk Region. He was arrested on 15 August 2007 on suspicion of drug dealing. He remained in custody while the crime was investigated and pending trial. On 3 February 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court convicted him of drug dealing and abuse of power, and sentenced him to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. On 18 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld his conviction on appeal.

4.  The case of Mr Bogatyrev

8.  The fourth applicant was born on 29 November 1986 and lived, prior to his conviction, in Turukhansk, Krasnoyarsk Region. On 23 April 2010 he was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 24 April 2010 a court remanded him in custody. His detention was subsequently extended. On 17 October 2012 he was convicted of aggravated murder and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

II.  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT

9.  On various dates the applicants’ complaints about lengthy pre-trial detention were communicated to the Government. The Government were asked to inform the Court of their position regarding a friendly settlement of the cases and any proposals they wished to make. The Government did not reply.

10.  On 27 August 2015 the Court invited the applicants to submit their claims for just satisfaction. The applicants did not reply.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

11.  Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single judgment.

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

12.  The applicants complained that the duration of their pre-trial detention had been excessive and in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads:

“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

13.  The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints about lengthy pre-trial detention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Period to be taken into consideration

14.  The Court reiterates that, when determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day an accused is taken into custody and ends on the day the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, or, possibly, when the applicant is released from custody pending criminal proceedings against him (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145-47, ECHR 2000-IV, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 112, 22 May 2012).

15.  In the present case, the first applicant, Mr Chernoyvan, was arrested on 27 February 2003 and convicted on 9 February 2007. Thus, he spent three years, eleven months and fourteen days in pre-trial detention.

16.  The second applicant, Mr Smirnov, was arrested on 13 March 2007 and released on 14 March 2007. On 29 March 2007 he was arrested again and placed in custody. He was released on 12 September 2007. Thus, he spent five months and seventeen days in pre-trial detention.

17.  The third applicant, Mr Bobrov, was arrested on 15 August 2007 and convicted on 3 February 2011. Thus, he spent three years, five months and twenty days in pre-trial detention.

18.  The fourth applicant, Mr Bogatyrev, was arrested on 23 April 2010 and convicted on 17 October 2012. Thus, he spent two years, five months and twenty-five days in pre-trial detention.

C.  Merits

19.  The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant’s detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, 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; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).

20.  Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court notes that there is no reason to arrive at a different finding. It considers that the authorities extended the applicants’ detention on grounds which, although “relevant”, cannot be regarded as “sufficient”. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with “special diligence”.

21.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22.  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.”

23.  The applicants did not submit claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the complaints concerning the excessive duration of pre-trial detention admissible;

 

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 September 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                     Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President




 

APPENDIX

 

No.	Application No.	Lodged on	Applicant Date of birth Place of residence	Represented by
1.	41472/06	25/08/2006	Valeriy Aleksandrovich CHERNOYVAN 27/04/1961 Poronaysk, Sakhalin Region
2.	39691/07	05/08/2007	Dmitriy Gennadyevich SMIRNOV 29/05/1971 Samara	Andrey Nikolayevich PAULOV
3.	54454/09	10/09/2009	Oleg Anatolyevich BOBROV 14/10/1979 Ulybino, Novosibirsk Region
4.	17977/12	24/02/2012	Aleksandr Gavrilovich BOGATYREV 29/11/1986 Turukhansk, Krasnoyarsk Region