THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KHASAVOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 63440/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Khasavov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 November 2019.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms K.A. Moskalenko, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his detention on remand. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicant complained principally that his detention on remand had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The applicant 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 v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings; and Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 146-55, 30 July 2009, concerning the lack of compensation in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and to a delay in examination of an appeal against an extension order.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. 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.”
13. 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 sum indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court further 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,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of detention on remand;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
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
(in euros)[1]
63440/19
30/11/2019
Dagir Ziyavdinovich KHASAVOV
1959
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
17/09/2019 to
26/11/2020
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow,
Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow,
Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 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 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
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 18/09/2019
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow of 13/11/2019, appeal lodged on 18/11/2019, appeal decision of the Moscow City Court on 13/01/2020;
detention order of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow of 15/01/2020, appeal lodged on 20/01/2020, appeal decision of the Moscow City Court on 11/03/2020;
detention order of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 14/04/2020, appeal lodged on 16/04/2020, appeal decision of the Moscow City Court on 12/05/2020
9,750
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.