THIRD SECTION

CASE OF CHERNOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 20443/06 and 7 others -
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 October 2017

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

In the case of Chernova 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 21 September 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
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.
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:
Article 5 § 3
“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.
III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11.  Some 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 Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 95-98, 2 March 2006 and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 203-248, 31 May 2011.
IV.  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 join the applications;

2.  Declares the applications admissible;

3.  Holds that these applications 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 of the Convention 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 12 October 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Liv Tigerstedt	Luis López Guerra
Acting Deputy 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
	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.		20443/06
27/04/2006	Natalya Yuryevna Chernova
20/07/1980	Agranovskiy Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Elektrostal	14/12/2004 to
08/12/2005	11 month(s) and
25 day(s)
		1,000	
2.		13572/10
14/02/2010	Vladimir Vasilyevich Yemelyanov
13/10/1961	
	01/07/2008 to
22/09/2010	2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 22 day(s)
		2,300	
3.		77873/11
30/11/2011	Tatyana Aykovna Karapetyan
19/01/1975	Semkin Vladimir Borisovich
Tyumen	27/01/2011 to
09/07/2013	2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 13 day(s)
	Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - From 25/01/2011 to 26/06/2014 at two levels of jurisdiction	3,400	
4.		21872/16
02/03/2016	Andrey Anatolyevich Nelyubov
23/01/1978	
	13/10/2015
pending	More than 1 year(s) and
10 month(s) and
17 day(s)
		2,100	
5.		29351/16
05/05/2016	Aleksandr Leonidovich Popov
04/08/1975	
	18/09/2013
pending	More than 3 year(s) and
11 month(s) and
12 day(s)
		4,000	
6.		30872/16
11/05/2016	Igor Yevgenyevich Pukhachev
07/06/1980	
	04/12/2012
pending	More than 4 year(s) and
8 month(s) and 26 day(s)
	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - inadequate facilities for defence: court rejecting the applicant’s motion for a consultation with his lawyer	6,400	
7.		34662/16
01/06/2016	Igor Beglyarovich Grigoryan
18/07/1961	
	07/12/2015
pending	More than 1 year(s) and
8 month(s) and 23 day(s)
		1,900	
8.		4516/17
08/11/2016	Aleksandr Ivanovich Arzamasov
30/05/1990	
	21/01/2014
pending	More than 3 year(s) and
7 month(s) and 9 day(s)
		3,800