THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30304/18
Roman Pavlovich BURDUKOVSKIY
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 June 2018,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Roman Pavlovich Burdukovskiy, a Russian national, was born in 1984 and lived in the Republic of Buryatia. He was represented before the Court by Mr Y.A. Vishnevskiy, a lawyer practising in Ulan-Ude.
2. The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the pre-trial detention and the subsequent house arrest between 8 July 2016 and 24 August 2018 and under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the length of the judicial review of the house arrest order of 7 May 2018 were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAWComplaint under ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
3. The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
4. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and subsequent house arrest between 8 July 2016 and 24 August 2018. They offered to pay the applicant the amount of 2,600 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 decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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.
5. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
6. The applicant disagreed with the terms of the declaration.
7. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
8. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
9. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the length of the pre-trial detention and house arrest (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, 5 July 2016, and Kavkazskiy v. Russia, no. 19327/13, 28 November 2017).
10. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
11. In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
12. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application in this part may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
13. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and of the subsequent house arrest between 8 July 2016 and 24 August 2018.Complaint under ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the excessive length of the judicial review of the house arrest order of 7 May 2018.
15. The Government submitted that the said order was reviewed on 22 May 2018, thus fifteen days after it had been issued. They further pointed out that the appeal was submitted by the applicant and his lawyer on 10 and 14 May 2018, respectively, and that the submissions reached the appeal court on 16 May 2018.
16. The Court observes that the length of the judicial review of approximately a week between the lodging of the appeal against the detention order and the examination of the appeal by the court does not as such run contrary to the “speediness” requirement laid down in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 154, 23 October 2012).
17. Having regard to the above-mentioned considerations, the Court concludes that the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in so far as they concern the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy