European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 24715/16 and 7 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

11 January 2018

 

 

 

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




In the case of Pavlov 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 7 December 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.

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 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.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  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.”

12.  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.

13.  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

(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 11 January 2018, 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	Courts which issued detention orders / examined appeals	Specific grievances	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	24715/16 22/04/2016	Sergey Vasilyevich Pavlov 26/07/1950		20/10/2015 to 27/07/2016 9 month(s) and 8 day(s)	Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk/Novosibirsk Regional Court	- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.	1,000
2.	44246/16 07/07/2016	Nikolay Aleksandrovich Vtorushin 30/10/1979		05/10/2013 to 08/01/2016 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 4 day(s)	Khanty-Mansi District Court of the Khanty-Mansi-Yugra Region/Khanty-Mansi-Yugra Regional Court	- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.	2,400
3.	5600/17 12/12/2016	Petr Ivanovich Kazakov 23/07/1985		24/07/2015 Pending   More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s)	Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk/Krasnoyarsk Regional Court	- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.	2,400
4.	6690/17 08/12/2016	Vadim Rishatovich Dilabirov 16/08/1984		06/03/2013 to 30/06/2015   10/02/2016 Pending More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s)	Naberezhnyy Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic/Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic	- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; -collective detention orders; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.	4,200
5.	11771/17 24/01/2017	Aleksandr Yuryevich Kunets 16/11/1989	Sokalskiy Boris Borisovich Moscow	28/04/2015 to 23/03/2017 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 24 day(s)	Tverskoy District Court of Moscow/ Moscow Regional Court	- use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.	2,100
6.	12052/17 09/02/2017	Magomedsalam Gamidovich Akhayev 24/04/1959	Kurchin Viktor Olegovich Moscow	14/05/2016 Pending More than 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 5 day(s)	Essentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region/Stavropol Regional Court	- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint	1,700
7.	14416/17 07/02/2017	Sergey Aleksandrovich Shakhman 29/08/1973	Rayevskiy Artem Aleksandrovich Moscow	04/10/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 15 day(s)	Presnenskyy District Court of Moscow/Moscow City Court	- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint	1,200
8.	16116/17 15/02/2017	Igor Gennadyevich Kharlamov 17/03/1980	Penchukov Valeriy Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don	03/06/2015 to 25/10/2016 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s)	Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don/Rostov-on-Don Regional Court	- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.	1,500

 

 




---

[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.