THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BARAKHOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 54912/19 and 2 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 February 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Barakhoyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025,
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 and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
8. 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, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; 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).
9. 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.
10. 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 unreasonably long.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. 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 Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies; Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016, relating to the lack of review of detention; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018; and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Lutskevich v. Russia, nos. 6312/13 and 60902/14, §§ 85-104, 15 May 2018, regarding criminal conviction for mass disorder and use of violence against police officers.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the unreasonably long pre-trial detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see 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 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
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’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]
54912/19
10/10/2019
(6 applicants)
Akhmet Osmanovich BARAKHOYEV
1954
Musa Aslanovich MALSAGOV
1972
Magomed Musayevich KHAMKHOYEV
1987
Bagaudin Adamovich KHAUTIYEV
1990
Gelaniy Magometovich KHAMKHOYEV
1994
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
12/04/2019 to
15/12/2021
(Mr Barakhoyev)
12/04/2019 to 15/12/2021
(Mr Malsagov)
03/04/2019 to
16/02/2021
(Mr M. Khamkhoyev)
03/04/2019 to
15/12/2021
(Mr Khautiyev)
03/04/2019 to
13/02/2020
(Mr G. Khamkhoyev)
Nalchik Town Court, Kislovodsk Town Court, Stavropol Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)
1 year(s) and
10 month(s)
and 14 day(s)
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s)
10 month(s)
and 11 day(s)
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;
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 03/04/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record; raised on appeal on 10/04/2019 (Mr Barakhoyev, Mr Malsagov, Mr M.Khamkhoyev, Mr Khautiyev),
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicants asked the court to release them, but the court dismissed their claims: Kislovodsk Town Court, 27/01/2021, appeal lodged on 01/02/2021, Stavropol Regional Court, 19/02/2021, the appellate court refused to consider the appeal stating that the applicant should challenge detention orders, he did not have to lodge any separate claims for release (Mr Barakhoyev, Mr Malsagov, Mr M. Khamkhoyev, Mr Khautiyev),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic, 10/04/2019 (Mr Barakhoyev),
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 para. 2 of the CAO (Mr Barakhoyev and Mr Malsagov) and criminal prosecution under article 318 para. 2 of the Criminal Code (Mr Barakhoyev, Mr Malsagov, Mr M. Khamkhoyev, Mr Khautiyev, Mr G. Khamkhoyev) for participation in an unauthorised manifestation against an agreement on the border between two regions on 26/03/2019 in Magas; final decision: Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic, 10/04/2019; criminal proceedings pending as of the date of lodging the application with the Court
6,500,
to each of the applicants
56746/19
25/10/2019
Amir Mukhazhirovich OSKANOV
1991
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
03/04/2019 to
28/02/2020
Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic
10 month(s) and 26 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
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - criminal conviction under article 318 of the Criminal Code on account of violence against a public official for participation in a meeting in Magas on 26/03/2019 against amendments to the law on referendum; final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 23/04/2020
6,000
41746/21
07/08/2021
Yelena Yuryevna ZHURAVLEVA
1968
Zhuravleva Viktoriya Vladimirovna
Moscow
23/05/2019 to
31/03/2021
Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 9 day(s)
collective detention orders;
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;
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
2,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.