THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BELOUSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 65302/16 and 2 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 June 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Belousov 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 7 June 2018,
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. In application no. 65302/16, the applicant also submitted a complaint under Article 5 § 4 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 application no. 65302/16, the applicant also submitted a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. 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 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 June 2018, 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 name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Courts which
issued detention
orders/examined
appeals
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]
65302/16
14/04/2017
Rodion Yuryevich Belousov
31/03/1972
Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna
St Petersburg
25/10/2014
Pending.
More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22 day(s)
Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg /
St Petersburg City Court
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. With relation to detention orders of 25/04/2016 (upheld on appeal on 17/07/2016 and on cassation on 12/10/2016), of 12/08/2016 (upheld on appeal on 14/11/2016), of 11/11/2016 (upheld on appeal on 31/01/2017), and of 14/02/2017 (upheld on appeal on 29/03/2017)
4,800
30018/17
08/04/2017
Yuriy Gennadyevich Shumeyko
10/03/1984
Kozodayev Vladimir Nikolayevich
Petrozavodsk
10/11/2014
Pending.
More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and
7 day(s)
Petrozavodsk Town Court; Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic
collective detention orders; 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
3,700
32887/17
01/04/2017
Pavel Yuryevich Stepanenko
16/11/1976
19/03/2016
Pending.
More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s)
Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd / Volgograd Regional Court / Traktorozavoskiy District Court of Volgograd
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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
2,200
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy