CASE OF KONDRATYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 61513/14)
22 June 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kondratyev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in an application (no. 61513/14) 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 Sergey Viktorovich Kondratyev (“the applicant”), on 27 August 2014.
2. The applicant was represented by Konstantin Vladimirovich Pakin, a lawyer practising in Velikiy Novgorod.
3. The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
4. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant.
6. In particular, the Government acknowledged that the applicant had remained in pre-trial detention for an excessively lengthy period in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 1,700 euros and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s judgement. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the abovementioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The declaration did not mention the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention.
7. The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The Court reiterates the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government and will treat it as a friendly settlement between the parties pertaining to the part of the application under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
9. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties as regards a part of the application. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the part of the application in so far as it concerned Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
10. Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. 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 Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 203-48, 31 May 2011, and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. 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 strike the part of the application pertaining to the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention;
2. Declares the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 22 June 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Date of birth
Representative name and location
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses under the friendly settlement
Sergey Viktorovich Kondratyev
Pakin Konstantin Vladimirovich
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the applicant’s appeal against detention orders of 04/02/2014, 22/07/2014 ,
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - Impossibility to receive compensation for lengthy detention