THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DAYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 9668/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 May 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dayanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 9668/10) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Russian nationals, Mr Leonid Faizovich Dayanov, Ms Elza Maratovna Dayanova, Mr Rinat Ralifovich Abkadyrov, Mr Tagir Maratovich Ulyamayev and Mr Ruslan Leonidovich Dayanov (“the applicants”), on 28 January 2010.
2. The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
4. Mr L. Dayanov, Ms E. Dayanova, Mr R. Abkadyrov and Mr T. Ulyamayev complained about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Mr R. Dayanov complained about his unlawful detention on 7 May 2008.
On 4 December 2015 Ms E. Dayanova revoked her application.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
5. Mr L. Dayanov, Ms E. Dayanova, Mr R. Abkadyrov and Mr T. Ulyamayev complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read 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.”
6. In view of Ms E. Dayanova’s request, the Court decides to strike the application out in so far as it concerns this applicant.
7. As regards the remaining applicants, 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.
II. REMAINING COMPLAINT
11. Mr R. Dayanov raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
12. 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 either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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 strike the application in so far as it concerns Ms E. Dayanova out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention;
2. Declares the complaints of Mr L. Dayanov, Mr R. Abkadyrov and Mr T. Ulyamayev concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention admissible, and the remainder of the application in so far as it concerns Mr R. Dayanov 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
(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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Period of detention
Length of detention
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant marked by asterisks
(in euros)[1]
9668/10
28/01/2010
(4 applicants)
Leonid Faizovich Dayanov *
27/09/1964
Rinat Ralifovich
Abkadyrov *
10/06/1985
Elza Maratovna Dayanova
19/11/1964
Tagir Maratovich Ulyamayev *
21/05/1971
Ruslan Leonidovich Dayanov
14/01/1992
07/05/2008 to
29/04/2013
4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s)
5,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy