THIRD SECTION
CASE OF AMUNTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 59667/16 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Amunts and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2021,
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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
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 LAWJOINDER 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.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 reads 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.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 59667/16 and 8419/19, the applicants complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the appeal against extension of their pre-trial detention had not been decided “speedily” (see the 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 disclose a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012).REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 59667/16 the applicant raised complaints under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 (c) and Article 13 of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the application 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.
14. It follows that this part of application no. 59667/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length and lack of speedy review of pre-trial detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 59667/16, inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);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 15 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Deputy RegistrarPresident
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’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order/examined appeal
Length of detention
Specific defects
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
59667/16
10/10/2016
Dmitriy
Mikhaylovich
AMUNTS
1962
Abgadzhava Alkhas Leonidovich
Moscow
25/08/2014 to
18/04/2017
Basmanniy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)
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
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - belated appellate review of detention orders of 18/03/2016 and 14/04/2016, the appeals were considered on 28/04/2016 and 30/05/2016 respectively
3,300
73370/16
22/11/2016
Boris
Valeryevich KHAYTOVICH
1965
Semenov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Moscow
19/09/2014 to
29/12/2017
Moscow City Court
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)
Collective detention orders;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
3,400
27996/18
01/06/2018
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOZLOV
1974
06/10/2017 to
27/12/2019
Pyatigorsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 22 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
2,300
56488/18
16/11/2018
Nasreddin
Medzhid ogly ODZHAGVERDIYEV
1967
Yefimenko Anton Eduardovich
Moscow
17/04/2018
pending
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
3,100
8419/19
30/01/2019
Vasiliy
Sergeyevich KOSTYLEV
1982
Yeliseyev Oleg Viktorovich
Moscow
10/09/2018 to
28/08/2019
Khamovnicheskiy District Court; Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
11 month(s) and 19 day(s)
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Domestic courts’ failure to examine speedily the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of 11/09/2018 (upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 26/11/2018)
1,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy