THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KARABULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications no. 50796/17 and 3 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 December 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Karabulin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2019,
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 criminal proceedings.
THE LAWJOINDER 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.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
7. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
8. In the leading case of Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, 2 March 2006 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 as to 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 proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kulida v. Russia, no. 44049/09, 17 June 2014; Dimov v. Russia, no. 7427/06, 23 September 2014; and Skrylev and Others v. Russia, no. 15754/06, 15 April 2014), as well as to the Court’s judgments related to the previous applications made by some of the applicants in the present case and the just satisfaction awards already made to them in those cases, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
13. 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,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;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 19 December 2019, 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 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i]
50796/17
04/07/2017
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Karabulin
24/12/1980
14/10/2010
04/09/2017
6 year(s) and 10 month(s)
and 22 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,400
51910/17
13/06/2017
Arkadiy Ivanovich Pavlyukevich
12/12/1978
12/07/2011
04/09/2017
6 year(s) and 1 month(s)
and 24 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,400
67759/17
04/09/2017
Sergey Vasilyevich Seleznev
18/03/1981
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
21/07/2010
04/09/2017
7 year(s) and 1 month(s)
And 15 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,900
74162/17
19/09/2017
Sergey Aleksandrovich Kuzmin
28/08/1988
20/07/2010
04/09/2017
7 year(s) and 1 month(s)
and 16 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,900
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy