CASE OF KINDYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KINDYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 46685/20 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 September 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kindyakov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Branko Lubarda, President,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 4 July 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 criminal proceedings.

THE LAW

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6.  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).

7.  The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in their cases had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

8.  The Court must firstly ascertain whether the applicants maintain their victim status, regard being had to the outcome of the domestic compensation proceedings instituted by them in connection with their grievances. It further reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her victim status if national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-93, ECHR 2006-V).

9.  The Court notes that the relevant claims brought by Mr Ananyev (application no. 44916/21) were dismissed by the domestic courts. Accordingly, the Court finds it established that at no time did the domestic authorities acknowledge a breach of the Convention in respect of the applicant and that the latter can still claim to be the victim of the violation alleged.

10.  As to the remainder of the applications, the Court notes that, even though the domestic authorities expressly acknowledged that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicants monetary compensation in that respect, it cannot accept that the amount awarded to the applicants on account of the violation of their rights was sufficient or comparable to what it generally awards in similar Russian cases. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicants may still claim to be the victims of the violation alleged.

11.  The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

12.  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).

13.  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.

14.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.

15.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

16.  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), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of criminal proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.