THIRD SECTION
CASE OF IKRAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 25742/17 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 March 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ikramov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 February 2021,
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 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.THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS Nos. 4715/19 AND 13050/19 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in respect of applications nos. 4715/19 and 13050/19 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 cases (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 merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
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 reads 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 has already found a violation in respect of the 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-LAW
12. In applications nos. 25742/17, 4715/19 and 13050/19, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages in court hearing rooms; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters; and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, as regards the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 7318/18 the applicant complained about conditions of his detention under Article 3 of the Convention.
14. The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was effective, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention allegedly in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant’s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of application no. 7318/18 should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.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,Decides to join the applications;Rejects the Government’s request to strike applications nos. 4715/19 and 13050/19 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;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 the application no. 7318/18 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints 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 the 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 11 March 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Acting 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’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]
25742/17
15/03/2017
Andrey Rashitovich IKRAMOV
1973
Kulapov Vitaliy Viktorovich
Moscow
03/03/2015 to
06/02/2018
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s)
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;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - complaint about detention order of 16/08/2016 was dealt with by the appellate court on 27/09/2016; complaint about detention order of 18/10/2016 was dealt with by the appellate court on 08/12/2016.
4,400
28311/17
05/04/2017
Yuriy Baronovich KUDZAGOV
1977
11/04/2012 to
21/11/2016
Mytishchi Town Court,
Moscow Regional Court
4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 11 day(s)
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
collective detention orders;
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
6,200
28726/17
07/03/2017
Ramil Rafikovich ZALYAYEV
1966
13/01/2014 to
09/06/2017
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 28 day(s)
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
4,600
31080/17
21/03/2017
Ilyas Miskhatovich SABIRZYANOV
1969
26/01/2013 to
18/10/2017
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,
Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan
4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
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.
6,400
7318/18
26/01/2018
Nikita Alekseyevich YASHKIN
1981
Shein Yevgeniy Valentinovich
St Petersburg
25/10/2014 to
19/09/2018
St Petersburg City Court
3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
5,300
4715/19
13/05/2019
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich FRIDRIKH
1993
11/10/2018 to
27/05/2019
Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
7 month(s) and 17 day(s)
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 - appeal against detention order of 25/12/2018 was examined only on 22/01/2019;
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - lack of effective remedy against excessive length of detention and against lack of speediness of review of detention;
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in metal cages during hearings in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk from 12/10/2018 to 27/05/2019.
9,750
13050/19
03/06/2019
Vladimir Leonidovich TORSHIN
1963
31/05/2017 to
17/05/2019
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 day(s)
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
collective detention orders;
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.
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement of the applicant on a number of occasions in a metal cage in the court room of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; leading to the conviction on 17/05/2019;
Art. 13 lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings.
9,750
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy