European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 25071/07)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

8 November 2016

 

 

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




In the case of Dzhavadov 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 11 October 2016,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 25071/07) 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 Gyunduz Bakhram Ogly Dzhavadov (“the applicant”), on 29 April 2007.

2.  The applicant was represented by D. Gudkov, a lawyer practising in Samara.

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

4.  On 16 March 2015 the complaint concerning length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

5.  The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is detained in Togliatti, Samara Region.

7.  On 19 October 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing.

8.  On 20 October 2006 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara remanded the applicant in custody. The court held that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime, that he could abscond, commit crimes, destroy evidence, threaten witnesses or in any other way interfere with the investigation.

9.  On 18 December 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court reproduced the reasoning of the previous detention order. The court also indicated that the applicant had played a leading part in the criminal activities.

10.  On 15 February 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the ground that the investigation was still pending and it was necessary to conduct some investigative activities. The court further referred to the same grounds as in the previous detention orders.

11.  The Samara Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders.

12.  On 1 June 2007 the Bolshechernigovskiy District Court of the Samara Region convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to 11 years’ imprisonment and a fine. On 21 August 2007 the Samara Regional Court upheld his conviction on appeal.

THE LAW

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

13.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been excessively long and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Article 5 § 3 provides 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.”

14.  The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible because the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule. They further stated that the Court’s Registry determined incorrectly the introduction date of the application. According to the Government, the applicant submitted his application form only on 16 December 2007, i.e., eight months after the date of his first letter of 29 April 2007. Therefore, the correct introduction date should be 16 December 2007. The applicant’s detention ended on 1 June 2007. Thus he lodged his application out of time.

15.  The applicant did not make any comments.

A.  Admissibility

16.  The Court notes that Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court (as amended in July 2006) as in effect on the date of the applicant’s first letter reads as follows:

“5. The date of introduction of the application shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the object of the application. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction.”

17.  The Court has reiterated this principle in its case-law (see, for example, Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, §§ 17 and 19, 1 June 2010; and Zverev v. Russia (dec.), no. 16234/05, § 12, 3 July 2012).

18.  As regards the definition of the subject matter of the application, the case-law of the Court is clear that it is the complaint characterised not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on, but also by the facts alleged in it (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009).

19.  In connection with a period of pre-trial detention, the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention starts to run, from the date on which the charge is determined by a court at first instance (see Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000).

20.  In the present case, the applicant submitted his first letter on 29 April 2007. He stated that the domestic courts had not thoroughly considered the issue of his pre-trial detention and had not addressed the arguments of the defence. In the Court’s opinion, the applicant clearly indicated the object of the application as required by the Rules of the Court.

21.  By letter of 18 June 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit the application form not later than six months after the date of this letter. The applicant filed his application form with the Court on 16 December 2007. Thus the applicant complied with the Court’s instructions. It follows that in the case at hand the introduction date shall be the date of the first communication from the applicant, that is 29 April 2007.

22.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention ended on 1 June 2007 when he was convicted. Accordingly, the applicant complied with the six-month rule.

23.  The Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 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

24.  The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted from 19 October 2006, the date of the applicant’s arrest, to 1 June 2007, the date of his conviction. It amounted, accordingly, to seven months and twelve days.

25.  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant’s detention 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 others, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; 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).

26.  Having regard to its case-law in similar cases and to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

27.  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.”

28.  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 excessive duration of pre-trial detention admissible;

 

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                     Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President