THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BADALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 24904/07 and 6 others ‑ see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 July 2017

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

In the case of Badalov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Luis López Guerra, President,
	Dmitry Dedov,
	Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 June 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. Some applicants 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.  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).
8.  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.
9.  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.
10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Article III.	III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11.  In applications nos. 24904/07, 66983/09 and 22656/14, the applicants 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. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012.
Article IV.	IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12.  In applications nos. 24904/07 and 66983/09, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
Article V.	V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14.  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.”
15.  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.
16.  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 length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 24904/07 and 66983/09 inadmissible;

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;

4.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Liv Tigerstedt	Luis López Guerra
Acting Deputy Registrar	President

APPENDIX
Article VI.	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
	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 per applicant (in euros)	
1.		24904/07
07/04/2007	Bislan Nurdiyevich Badalov
24/01/1973	Centre of Assistance To International Protection
Moscow	10/07/2003 to
14/09/2005

24/07/2006 to
10/04/2007
	2 years and 2 months and 5 days

8 months and 18 days
	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the applicant’s appeals against detention orders of 06/03/2007 (examined on 19/07/2007)	4,000	
2.		66983/09
02/12/2009	Sergey Mikhaylovich Kondratyev
27/07/1961	Mylnikov Yegor Nikolayevich
Velikiy Novgorod	03/06/2009 to
01/06/2010
	11 months and 30 days
	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the applicant’s appeals against detention orders of 03/08/2009 (examined on 19/08/2009), 01/09/2009 (examined on 14/10/2009), 28/10/2009 (examined on 25/11/2009)
	1,300	
3.		11858/11
24/01/2011	Nikita Aleksandrovich Sukhov
22/07/1983	Yablokov Anatoliy Yuryevich
Moscow	22/07/2010 to
05/04/2011
	8 months and 15 days
		1,000	
4.		22656/14
04/03/2014	Eduard Valeryevich Nekipelov
21/09/1970	Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow	09/02/2012 to
09/07/2014
	2 years and 5 months and 1 day
	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – delayed review of the detention order of 6 August 2013 – appeal decision of the Moscow City Court of 12 September 2013, and against the detention order of 11 June 2013 – appeal decision of the Moscow City Court of 8 July 2014	3,400	
5.		14672/16
29/02/2016	Roman Nikolayevich Makarov
11/04/1973	Reyzvig Arnold Anatolyevich
Taganrog	01/10/2015 to
18/08/2016
	10 months and 18 days
		1,000	
6.		22083/16
11/04/2016	Khamid Salavdinovich Razhapov
24/06/1986
	Okushko Tatyana Borisovna
Moscow	23/09/2014
pending
	More than 2 years and 8 months
		2,800	
7.		22309/16
07/04/2016	Artem Aleksandrovich Koryunov
11/01/1990	Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog	28/10/2015
pending
	More than 1 year and 6 months and 25 days
		1,700