THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 49689/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 November 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dzhasybayeva 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 Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 49689/10) 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 a Russian national, Ms Minira Rakhimovna Dzhasybayeva (“the applicant”), on 3 August 2010.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr N.V. Levchenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 2 June 2014 the complaint concerning the length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lived, prior to her arrest, in Moscow.
5. On 6 June 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of multiple counts of fraud.
6. On 7 June 2008 the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic remanded her in custody. She remained in custody pending investigation, study of the case file and trial. Referring to the seriousness of the charges, the courts extended her pre-trial detention, stating that she might interfere with the investigation, abscond, reoffend, destroy evidence or threaten witnesses.
7. On 24 March 2014 the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court convicted the applicant as charged.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The applicant complained that the duration of her pre-trial detention had been excessive and in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads:
“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.”
A. Admissibility
9. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to inform the Court of developments in her case after the date of communication, and that the Court should not take into account the period of her pre-trial detention after that date.
10. The applicant did not comment.
11. In response to the Government’s contesting the scope of the applicant’s complaint, the Court observes that the present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. By lodging her application with the Court the applicant was complaining of a situation in which she had already been for some time and which seemed set to last. In these circumstances, any subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings against her would not have affected the core of the matter underlying her complaint under the Convention, because a significant period of her detention had already taken place. Accordingly, the Court is unable to find that a lack of information about further extensions of the applicant’s detention and her conviction could have had a decisive influence on its judgment, or could have prevented it from ruling on the case (see Kalinin v. Russia [Committee], no. 54749/12, §§ 18-21, 19 February 2015). It finds the Government’s argument without merit and of no legal consequence to the proceedings.
12. The Court considers that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Period to be taken into consideration
13. According to the Court’s case-law, the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention begins on the day an accused is taken into custody and ends with the applicant’s release or his or her conviction by a first-instance court (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 112, 22 May 2012, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145-47, ECHR 2000‑IV).
14. In the present case the applicant was arrested on 6 June 2008 and convicted on 24 March 2014. Her pre-trial detention therefore lasted five years, nine months and eighteen days.
C. Merits
15. The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant’s detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
16. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that there is no reason to arrive at a different finding. It considers that the authorities extended the applicant’s detention on grounds which, although “relevant”, cannot be regarded as “sufficient”. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with “special diligence”.
17. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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.”
19. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive duration of pre-trial admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy