FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KAZNACHEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 78918/17 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kaznacheyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2024,
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.
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
8. 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, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; 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).
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some 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, cited above, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 87-99, 6 December 2007, regarding refusal of leave to prisoner for attending funeral of close relatives; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 57-97, 15 May 2014, and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, relating to the applicants’ prosecution in breach of the right to freedom of expression, in particular, for allegedly encouraging disorderly conduct and making calls to participate in public assemblies; and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020, regarding unlawful search.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications 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 the 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 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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]
78918/17
29/10/2017
Razmik Edikovich KAZNACHEYEV
1972
23/01/2014
-
Pending on
the date when the
application
was lodged
with the
Court, and
possibly as
of 16/09/2022
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
collective detention orders;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - delayed review of the detention order: detention order by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol on 24/01/2018, appeal lodged on 25/01/2018, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 05/04/2018
5,500
45621/18
20/09/2018
Petr Kimovich MILOSERDOV
1976
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
25/01/2018 to
19/05/2019
Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 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
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeals against the detention orders of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow of 21/02/2018, 20/04/2018,19/07/2018 were examined by the Moscow City Court on 26/03/2018, 23/05/2018, 15/08/2018 respectively,
Art. 8 (1) - refusal of leave to prisoner for attending funeral of close relatives - On 11/03/2019 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow refused to rule as to the applicant’s request to attend his father’s funeral and adjourned the hearing (see Lind v. Russia, §§ 87-99); final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 10/04/2019
6,500
18658/19
21/03/2019
Maksim Vitalyevich ROSHCHIN
1979
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
16/03/2018 to
06/08/2020
Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Lyublinksiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 22 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;
collective detention orders;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
2,500
32390/20
28/07/2020
Dmitriy Yuryevich SPORYKHIN
1985
08/08/2018
-
Pending on
the date when the
application
was lodged
with the
Court, and
possibly as
of 16/09/2022
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 9 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
collective detention orders;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
5,000
5326/21
06/01/2021
Nikolay Nikolayevich PLATOSHKIN
1965
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
04/06/2020
-
Pending on
the date when the
application
was lodged
with the
Court, and
possibly as
of 16/09/2022
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 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
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest and prosecution under articles 212 and 207.1 of the Criminal Code for encouraging mass disorders and public disclosure of untrue information; proceedings possibly ongoing as of 16/09/2022
5,000
42407/21
07/08/2021
Aleksey Vladimirovich KUZNETSOV
1986
Fedotova Yuliya
Yekaterinburg
12/12/2019
-
Pending on
the date when the
application
was lodged
with the
Court, and
possibly as
of 16/09/2022
Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 5 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
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 09/12/2020,
Appeal decision by the First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on 09/02/2021;
Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 09/03/2021,
Appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 13/04/2021;
Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 01/04/2021,
Appeal decision by the First Appellate Court, on 18/05/2021,
Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - Search of the residential flat; Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, 13/12/2019, Moscow City Court rejected the appeal complaint on 09/02/2021; no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search; the applicant is an individual entrepreneur who is charged under Art. 159 § 4 and 303 § 1 of the Criminal Code
9,750
44113/21
16/08/2021
Artem Vladimirovich PASHURA
1990
19/09/2019 to
04/03/2021
Severo-Eniseiskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 14 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;
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
1,600
13928/22
28/02/2022
Dmitriy Sergeyevich BARANOVSKIY
1979
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
31/01/2021 to
30/08/2021
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
7 month(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
collective detention orders
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction under article 236 of the Criminal Code for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/10/2021
4,000
18289/22
19/03/2022
Bulat Galiyevich BILALOV
1982
Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna
Kazan
05/11/2019 to
22/09/2021
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 18 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
2,100
20949/22
04/04/2022
Armen Vardanovich ARAMYAN
1997
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
14/04/2021 to
12/04/2022
Justice of the Peace of the 208 Court Circuit of the Dorogomilovo District, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
11 month(s) and 30 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
Detention orders by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow and Justice of the Peace of the 208 Court Circuit of the Dorogomilovo District of 10/09/2021, 01/10/2021 and 09/11/2021 were upheld by the Moscow City Court and Dorogomilovo District Court on 11/10/2021, 20/10/2021 and 09/12/2021, respectively
1,500
30581/22
28/05/2022
Nataliya Borisovna TYSHKEVICH
1994
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
14/04/2021 to
12/04/2022
Justice of the Peace of the 208 Court Circuit of the Dorogomilovo District of Moscow, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Dorogomilovo District Court, Moscow City Court
11 month(s) and 30 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
collective detention orders
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Justice of the Peace of the 208 Court Circuit of the Dorogomilovo District of Moscow of 09/11/2021 was upheld on appeal by the Dorogomilovo District Court of Moscow on 09/12/2021
1,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.