THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DZHABAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 51182/10 and 5 others ‑ see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 February 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dzhabarov 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 Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 January 2017,
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 application no. 59613/14, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Article I.	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.
Article II.	II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6.  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:
“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.”
7.  In application no. 51182/10 the Court takes note of the death of Mr Maksim Dzhabarov in 2012, after the introduction of the present application, and of the wish expressed by his widow and his son to continue the application before the Court in his name.
8.  The Government submitted that the rights under Article 5 of the Convention were of an eminently personal and non‑transferable nature and that it was therefore no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, which should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
9.  Regard being had to its well-established case-law (Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 33-35, 8 October 2015), the Court thus accepts that the applicant’s widow and son have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application on his behalf. The Government’s preliminary objection should therefore be dismissed.
10.  The Court considers that the conditions for striking the case out of the list of pending cases, as defined in Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, have not been met, and that it must continue to examine the application at the request of Mrs Evgeniya Reyfshneyder and Mr Aleksandr Dzhabarov. The Court will refer to the late Mr Maksim Dzhabarov as “the applicant”.
11.  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).
12.  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.
13.  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.
14.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Article III.	III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS
15.  In application no. 59613/14, the applicant 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, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/09, 22 May 2012; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Lebedev v Russia, no. 4493/04, 25 October 2007 (regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters).
Article IV.	IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16.  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.”
17.  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.
18.  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.  Holds that Mrs Evgeniya Reyfshneyder and Mr Aleksandr Dzhabarov can pursue the application on behalf of late Mr Maksim Dzhabarov (case no. 51182/10);

2.  Decides to join the applications;

3.  Declares the applications admissible;

4.  Holds that these applications 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 under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

6.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants (in case no. 51182/10, the applicant’s heirs, Mrs Evgeniya Reyfshneyder and Mr Aleksandr Dzhabarov jointly), 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 February 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Karen Reid	Helena Jäderblom
 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 /
	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.		51182/10
16/08/2010	Maksim Feliksovich DZHABAROV
06/06/1970	12/01/2010 to
12/08/2010
	7 month(s) and 1 day(s)
		1,000	
2.		62814/10
13/10/2010	Alena Gennadyevna ISAKOVA
15/07/1973	01/08/2008 to
15/09/2011
	3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 15 day(s)
		3,200	
3.		34313/11
28/04/2011	Leonid Aleksandrovich KUVAYEV
13/05/1972	15/09/2009 to
29/03/2012
	2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 15 day(s)
		2,700	
4.		10342/12
30/01/2012	Oleg Yuryevich KOLPAKOV
26/06/1966	18/05/2011 to
09/04/2012

28/08/2012 to
25/12/2013
	10 month(s) and 23 day(s)

1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 28 day(s)
		2,300	
5.		32166/14
30/03/2014	Veronika Vitalyevna SOPOVA
29/06/1982
	16/07/2012 to
10/11/2014
	2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26 day(s)
		2,400	
6.		59613/14
05/08/2014	Sergey Olegovich BIBIK
29/12/1986	19/04/2013 to
19/04/2015
	2 year(s) and 1 day(s)
	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the App.’s appeal against the detention order of 15/01/2014 which was considered on 11/02/2014
Delayed review of the App.’s appeal against the detention order of 12/03/2014 which was considered on 20/05/2014
Delayed review of the App.’s appeal against the detention order of 17/04/2014 which was considered on 18/07/2014
Delayed review of the App.’s appeal against the detention order of 13/10/2014 which was considered on 24/11/2014
Delayed review of the App.’s appeal against the detention order of 15/01/2015 which was considered on 16/02/2015	2,700