THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ANANCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 7026/10 and 25 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 February 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ananchev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,
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. Notice of the applications was given 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:
“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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 7026/10, 50230/15, 38251/17 and 70735/17, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given 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, §§ 152-158, 22 May 2012, concerning delays in review of detention, and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, regarding absence of detainees from civil proceedings.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 41269/17, 46650/17, 72606/17 and 73045/17 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.
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. 41269/17, 46650/17, 72606/17 and 73045/17 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 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.
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting 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
Date 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]
7026/10
11/01/2010
Dmitriy Nikolayevich Ananchev
05/11/1980
30/01/2009 to
18/02/2010
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
1 year(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.
Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to attend court hearings in his tort proceedings against the State before the first-instance court, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (judgment of 13/05/2013), and appeal court, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
(judgment of 11/12/2013)
2,600
63685/14
02/09/2014
Igor Vladimirovich Shchenikov
07/05/1979
Shprits Yevgeniy Viktorovich
Yaroslavl
26/10/2013 to
19/10/2015
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
2,600
50230/15
06/10/2015
Aleksandr Vadimovich Khoroshavin
26/11/1959
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
04/03/2015 to
09/02/2018
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 6 day(s)
Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
collective detention orders.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed appeal review of detention renewals:
24/05/2016 Moscow City Court – Appeal 05/07/2016 Moscow City Court;
04/03/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 06/04/2015 Moscow City Court;
22/04/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 24/06/2015 Moscow City Court;
24/08/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 05/10/2015 Moscow City Court;
25/11/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 03/02/2016 Moscow City Court
5,100
9712/17
24/01/2017
Konstantin Igorevich Ramzin
16/07/1990
Sokalskiy Boris Borisovich
Moscow
28/04/2015 to
21/03/2017
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow Regional Court
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.
2,700
38251/17
15/05/2017
Viktor Ivanovich Filatov
27/10/1961
Minina Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
29/06/2015
Pending.
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Meshchanskiy District Court,
Supreme Court of Russia
More than
3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 10 day(s)
Collective detention orders;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention order of 27/09/2016, appeal review on 15/11/2016
6,300
41269/17
30/05/2017
Arman Slavikovich Ayrapetyan
21/07/1977
Yermakova Galina Alekseyevna
Vladivostok
01/10/2014 to
05/02/2018
Ussuriysk Town Court of the Primorye Region; Primorye Regional Court
3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 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, as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
4,600
46292/17
14/06/2017
Aleksandr Olegovich Ebingard
25/11/1988
17/09/2015 to
12/02/2018
Syktyvkar Town Court;
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 27 day(s)
Collective detention orders;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as cased progressed;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
3,300
46650/17
02/06/2017
Denis Igorevich Armyakov
22/04/1979
12/12/2012
Pending.
Syktyvkar Town Court;
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
More than
6 year(s) and 27 day(s)
Collective detention orders;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
7,900
48129/17
29/05/2017
Konstantin Ivanovich Mashnin
27/12/1979
20/01/2016
Pending.
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskyy District Court of Kazan;
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
More than
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed.
3,900
48492/17
26/05/2017
Farid Ramazanovich Mustafayev
08/07/1987
04/02/2015 to
30/07/2018
Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit;
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)
Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as case progressed;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
4,700
49572/17
11/06/2017
Konstantin Viktorovich Voronov
28/12/1983
20/06/2015 to
28/06/2017
Yugorskiy District Court of theKhanty
Mansy Autonomous Region;
Khanty-Mansy District Court of the Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region; Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Regional Court of Yugra
2 year(s) and 9 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.
2,700
60773/17
10/08/2017
Anatoliy Nikolayevich Livada
21/04/1953
Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don
27/03/2017
Pending.
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
More than
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 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.
2,600
64359/17
17/08/2017
Ilnar Marselyevich Abdulmanov
27/11/1980
07/02/2017
Pending.
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
More than
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 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.
2,600
64589/17
21/08/2017
Yuriy Ivanovich Kucherenko
15/04/1983
Kucherenko Roman Ivanovich
Stavropol
03/03/2017 to
19/11/2017
Promyshlennyy District Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court
8 month(s) and 17 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.
1,300
68736/17
05/09/2017
Mikhail Nikolayevich Belyayev
15/10/1968
Okushko Tatyana Borisovna
Moscow
20/02/2017
Pending.
Taganskiy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court
More than
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)
Collective detention orders;
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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
2,700
70196/17
10/09/2017
Vladimir Leonidovich Korostelev
08/02/1950
07/10/2015
Pending.
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
More than
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
4,400
70735/17
01/09/2017
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Aydakin
25/02/1998
Filonova Oksana Gennadyevna
Sarov
21/03/2017 to
16/06/2017
Sarov Town Court;
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
2 month(s) and 27 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the request for a change of the measure of restraint dismissed by decision of the Sarov Town Court of 06/04/2017 was not examined on appeal.
Decision of 21/04/2017 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court which noted that such a decision was not amenable to an appeal as it was issued while the criminal proceedings were still pending and that it could only be resolved when the trial court was to determine the merits of the charges in the final court judgment. However, it was examined by the cassation instance court on 29/06/2017 - that is more than 2 months later.
500
72606/17
29/09/2017
Viktor Ivanovich Abrosichkin
03/02/1952
Gusakov Aleksandr Ivanovich
Moscow
01/02/2017
Pending.
Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court
More than
1 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 7 day(s)
Collective detention orders;
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.
2,600
73045/17
03/10/2017
Maksim Andreyevich Alekseyenko
10/11/1981
22/03/2017
Pending.
Moscow District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod;
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
More than
1 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 17 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
2,600
75119/17
18/10/2017
Khadidzha Ruslanovna Khamkhoyeva
25/05/1992
Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
29/01/2017 to
13/04/2018
Prigorodnyy District Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic;
Supreme Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 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.
1,700
76640/17
02/10/2017
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Sementsov
19/01/1980
27/04/2013 to
29/12/2015
20/07/2016
Pending.
Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok; Ussuriysk District Court of the Primorye Region;
Primorye Regional Court
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)
More than
2 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
19 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
6,800
77729/17
30/10/2017
Denis Vladimirovich Irza
01/10/1982
Abubakarov Magamed Saltanmuratovich
Nalchik
16/04/2015
Pending.
Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic and
Prokhladnenskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic;
Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic
More than
3 year(s) and
8 month(s) and 23 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
5,100
79395/17
07/11/2017
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Semenov
02/04/1984
02/11/2016 to
10/10/2017
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
11 month(s) and 9 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.
1,300
80186/17
23/10/2017
Roman Vladimirovich Chernoknizhnyy
31/01/1979
01/03/2012
Pending.
Syktyvkar Town Court;
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
More than
6 year(s) and
10 month(s) and 7 day(s)
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders.
9,200
80336/17
14/11/2017
Ruslan Andreyevich Piotrovskiy
12/10/1988
Rassokhin Artem Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
02/05/2017 to
05/04/2018
Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg;
St Petersburg City Court
11 month(s) and 4 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.
1,300
80395/17
13/11/2017
Maksim Anatolyevich Kopytkov
02/06/1985
06/12/2016
Pending.
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
More than
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.
2,900
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy