THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DEVYATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 24967/06, 13708/08, 43584/11, 2906/14, 68255/14, 72879/14 and 77966/14)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 December 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Devyatov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 December 2016,
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. 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 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 24967/06, 13708/08 and 72879/14 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 and Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, 2 March 2006.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINT
12. In application no. 68255/14, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, having argued that his prosecution was politically motivated.
13. The Court considers that in the light of all the material in its possession 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.
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 other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the application no. 68255/14 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 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 20 December 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
24967/06
09/04/2006
Sergey Gennadyevich DEVYATOV
23/07/1952
18/03/2002 to
19/02/2004
27/04/2004 to
11/05/2007
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)
3 year(s) and 15 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of appeals against the detentions orders of 07/08/2006 and 11/04/2006,
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings
6,500
13708/08
07/02/2008
Aleksey Vladimirovich ZAKURDAYEV
10/12/1974
Semin Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Izhevsk
02/05/2007 to
25/09/2008
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – Delayed review of the appeal against the detention order of 11/09/2008 ( only considered on 08/12/2008)
2,000
43584/11
15/06/2011
Sergey Valeryevich KORNEV
26/01/1972
Yesakov Vsevolod Vyacheslavovich
St Petersburg
13/05/2010 to
14/09/2011
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1,500
2906/14
16/12/2013
Viktor Valeryevich SELIVANOV
22/08/1975
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
22/09/2013 to
31/12/2013
3 month(s) and 10 day(s)
1,000
68255/14
15/10/2014
Daniil Ilyich KONSTANTINOV
05/02/1984
Dobreva Natasha Ognyanova
Sofia
22/03/2012 to
16/10/2014
2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 25 day(s)
2,700
72879/14
06/11/2014
Oleg Valeryevich DROZDOV
26/12/1973
Lunev Aleksey Vladimirovich
Moscow
22/10/2013
pending
More than
2 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 26 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the appeal against the detention order of 01/07/2014 (considered on 30/07/2014)
3,900
77966/14
03/12/2014
Olesya Igorevna KOVACH
22/07/1987
Bezverkhiy Yuriy Leonidovich
Tula
15/11/2013
pending
More than
2 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 3 day(s)
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy