THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BRITVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2113/20 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Britvin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,
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 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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. 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-LAW11. In applications nos. 22998/20, 35772/20 and 47030/20, 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, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during the court hearings; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport; and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. The applicant in application no. 22998/20 further complained about conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies in this connection. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
13. In application no. 47030/20 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
14. 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 matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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 further 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 of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints in application no. 22998/20 about conditions of detention and lack of effective remedies in this connection, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 47030/20 as 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 the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under 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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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]
2113/20
19/12/2019
Artem Andreyevich BRITVIN
1989
06/06/2018 to
28/10/2019
Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and
23 day(s)
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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders
1,500
5803/20
10/01/2020
Fedor Aleksandrovich KOZIN
1965
Sergey Anatolyevich Kutuzov
Orel
16/11/2018
pending
Zavodskoy District Court of Orel; Orel Regional Court; 1st Appeal Court of the General Jurisdiction; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
More than
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and
20 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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
3,900
5844/20
13/01/2020
Sergey Vasilyevich SHEVERDA
1975
Irina Borisovna Frenkel
Irkutsk
05/06/2019
pending
Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court
More than
3 year(s) and 2 month(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
3,200
22998/20
01/04/2020
Maksim Aleksandrovich LAPSHIN
1991
Tatyana Viktorovna
Sukhareva Moscow
12/02/2020
pending
Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
More than
2 year(s) and 5 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transport by van; numerous occasions since 13/02/2020; overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, during the transport the applicant’s head is covered with black bag;
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - metal cage in the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; numerous hearings since 13/02/2020.
9,750
35772/20
15/07/2020
Vyacheslav Sergeyevich PILIPENKO
1982
09/09/2017 to
21/04/2021
Kargasokskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region; Tomsk Regional Court
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and
13 day(s)
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 - the detention order of the Kargasokskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region of 22/10/2019 was examined on appeal by the Tomsk Regional Court on 23/01/2020.
4,300
40275/20
27/08/2020
Dmitriy Vladimirovich SINYAVSKIY
1973
Sergey Aleksandrovich Valiulin
Vladivostok
08/05/2020
pending
Primorye Regional Court
More than
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and
28 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
2,300
40846/20
15/08/2020
Yan Valeryevich NAKHAPETOV
1976
Yuliya Fedotova
Yekaterinburg
10/12/2019
pending
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court
More than
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and
26 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, collective detention orders, 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
2,800
41360/20
20/08/2020
Aleksandr Viktorovich POLYAKOV
1974
Dmitriy Nikolayevich Dmitriyev
Irkutsk
19/02/2020
pending
Irkutsk Garrison Military Court, Second Eastern District Military Court
More than
2 year(s) and 5 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
2,600
46678/20
24/09/2020
Sergey Vyacheslavovich DRUZHININ
1977
23/01/2020
pending
Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court
More than
2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and
13 day(s)
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
2,700
47030/20
08/10/2020
Marat Iskanderovich GALIASKAROV
1986
25/02/2020 to
06/12/2021
Aviastroitelnyy District Court of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and
12 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
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-2, Republic of Tatarstan - the applicant requested visits by his family (wife, daughter, parents) on several occasions from the investigating authorities and domestic courts to
no avail. Latest refusal of the court - 08/02/2021;
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of family visits in detention.
4,550
4351/21
21/12/2020
Ilya Aleksandrovich MAKARENKO
1979
03/03/2020
pending
Yessentuki Town Court of Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court
More than
2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 2 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.