European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 5969/09, 51884/10 and 38785/13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

11 October 2016

 

 

 

 

 

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

 




In the case of Ryzhikov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Branko Lubarda, President,
          Pere Pastor Vilanova,
          Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2016,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in three applications (nos. 5969/09, 51884/10 and 38785/13) 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 two Russian nationals and one Tadjik national, Mr Andrey Vladimirovich Ryzhikov, Mr Vyacheslav Nikolayevich Pronoza and Mr Saydmurod Bekovich Abdurakhmonov (“the applicants”), on 30 December 2008, 13 August 2010, and 16 May 2013 respectively.

2.  Mr Ryzhikov was represented by Ms P. Tamakulova, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. 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.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A.  Common facts

4.  The applicants were prosecuted in Russia for various crimes. They were arrested and detained pending investigation and 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 Ryzhikov

5.  The first applicant was born in 1973 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region. In 2007 the applicant was arrested in Ukraine. On 24 May 2008 he was extradited to Russia and was placed in pre-trial detention until 27 December 2010 when he was released on bail. On 22 April 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted him of fraud.

2.  The case of Mr Pronoza

6.  The second applicant was born in 1978 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Angarsk, Irkutsk Region. On 23 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 25 September 2007 the court remanded him in custody. On 24 June 2010 the Irkutsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of fraud.

3.  The case of Mr Abdurakhmonov

7.  The third applicant was born in 1967 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Yekaterinburg. The applicant was arrested on 16 August 2012. On 17 August 2012 the court held to place him in pre-trial detention. On 10 October 2013 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of trespass, battery, robbery and sexual assault.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

8.  Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the applications should be joined under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

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

9.  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.”

10.  The Government submitted that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons and complied with the reasonable time requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

11.  The applicants maintained their complaint.

A.  Admissibility

12.  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.  Period to be taken into consideration

13.  The Court reiterates that, when determining the length of pre-trial detention 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).

14.  In the present case, the first applicant, Mr Ryzhikov, was remanded in custody on 24 May 2008 and released on 27 December 2010. Thus, he spent two years, seven months, and four days in pre-trial detention.

15.  The second applicant, Mr Pronoza, was arrested on 23 September 2007 and convicted on 24 June 2010. Thus, he spent two years, nine months, and one day in pre-trial detention.

16.  The third applicant, Mr Abdurakhmonov, was arrested on 16 August 2012 and convicted on 10 October 2013. Thus, he spent one year, one month, and twenty-four days in pre-trial detention.

C.  Merits

17.  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).

18.  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”.

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

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20.  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.”

21.  The Court notes that Mr Pronoza did not submit any just satisfaction claims. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

A.  Damage

22.  Mr Ryzhikov claimed 80,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Mr Abdurakhmonov did not specify the amount leaving it to the Court’s discretion.

23.  The Government asked to determine the amount of just satisfaction in accordance with the Court’s well-established case-law.

24.  The Court considers that Mr Ryzhikov and Mr Abdurakhmonov must have suffered distress and frustration as a result of their pre-trial detention not being based on sufficient grounds. Having regard to the nature of the violation found, and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 2,700 to Mr Ryzhikov and EUR 1,200 to Mr Abdurakhmonov in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B.  Costs and expenses

25.  Mr Ryzhikov claimed EUR 72,866 for his legal expenses incurred before the domestic courts. The Court notes that these expenses are relevant only in so far as they were incurred in order to remedy the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Those costs cannot be deduced from the documents submitted.

C.  Default interest

26.  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.  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 on account of excessive length of pre-trial detention;

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros) to Mr Ryzhikov and EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) to Mr Abdurakhmonov plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

 

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                      Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President