THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KLEPIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 3400/06, 1134/12, 27903/12, 15155/13, 1454/14, 43335/14, 43527/14, 60371/14, 68060/14, 36550/15, 39181/15, 41633/15 and 51162/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 November 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Klepikov 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 3 November 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. In applications nos. 15155/13 and 41633/15 the 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. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted unilateral declaration in some applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read 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.”
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, 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.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. In application no. 41633/15, the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Lebedev v Russia, no. 4493/04, 25 October 2007; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Idalov v. Russia [GP], no. 5826/09, 22 May 2012.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 15155/13, the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike some applications out of its list of cases;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 15155/13 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. 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.
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 November 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]
3400/06
21/11/2005
Oleg Anatolyevich KLEPIKOV
02/12/1966
01/03/2005 to
25/07/2005
4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
1,000
1134/12
21/12/2011
Boris Nikolayevich ZHUKOV
27/10/1961
Mylnikov Yegor Nikolayevich
Velikiy Novgorod
25/08/2011 to
25/01/2012
5 month(s) and 1 day(s)
1,000
27903/12
02/04/2012
Yelena Mikhaylovna ZOTOVA
19/11/1956
25/10/2011 to
09/06/2012
7 month(s) and 16 day(s)
1,000
15155/13
05/12/2012
Leonid Dmitriyevich MATSUKOV
21/04/1967
Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich
St Petersburg
05/09/2013 to
14/01/2014
4 month(s) and 10 day(s)
1,000
1454/14
17/12/2013
Andrey Aleksandrovich KOLESNIKOV
19/06/1985
07/02/2013 to
26/08/2015
2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 20 day(s)
2,700
43335/14
24/05/2014
Sergey Vasilyevich DANILENKO
28/07/1968
Gak Irina Vladimirovna
Rostov-na-Donu
15/11/2012
pending
More than
3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)
4,100
43527/14
30/04/2014
Spartak Sergeyevich MOSKVITIN
13/07/1991
19/06/2013 to
19/01/2015
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s)
1,800
60371/14
29/08/2014
Eduard Grigoryevich PALADYAN
10/04/1955
Karpinskiy Roman Sergeyevich
Moscow
27/03/2013
pending
More than
3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s)
3,700
68060/14
30/09/2014
Igor Aleksandrovich NAYDENOV
24/06/1982
09/07/2013
pending
More than
3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 25 day(s)
3,300
36550/15
01/09/2015
Anatoliy Mikhailovich LEVIN
01/06/1977
05/02/2015 to
05/08/2015
6 month(s) and 1 day(s)
1,000
39181/15
04/08/2015
Akif Kerim Ogly SAYADOV
06/06/1951
Kulkov Vadim Aleksandrovich
Kirov
27/10/2014 to
27/06/2015
8 month(s) and 1 day(s)
1,000
41633/15
16/07/2015
Andrey Antonovich POPLAVSKIY
20/05/1960
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
15/11/2014
pending
More than 1 year(s) and
10 month(s) and 20 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
2,700
51162/15
02/10/2015
Stepan Armenakovich ANANIKYAN
10/02/1949
Kanevskiy German Valeryevich
Moscow
10/11/2013 to
17/08/2015
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s)
2,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy