THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KIRILCHUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28484/06, 4613/09, 29899/09, 20064/13, 23850/13, 69323/13 and 76881/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 November 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kirilchuk 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 13 October 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”).
3. Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations submitted by them in respect of applications nos. 69323/13 and 76881/13, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. The applicant in case no. 29899/09 also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the domestic courts’ failure to speedily examine his appeals against a number of detention orders.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. 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, including the Court’s approach to the calculation of the six-month time-limit (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 130 and 135, 22 May 2012 and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, § 80, 25 June 2015, with further references), 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. In application no. 29899/09, the applicant submitted an additional complaint about delays in the examination of his appeals against the detention orders. The complaint raises an issue under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see Idalov, cited above, § 154, with further references). The 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 a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. Some applicants (cases nos. 28484/06, 4613/09, 29899/09, and 69323/13) also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. 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 applications nos. 69323/13 and 76881/13 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the speediness of review of detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 28484/06, 4613/09, 29899/09, and 69323/13 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 complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention raised under well-established case-law of the Court in application no. 29899/09;
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 3 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]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
28484/06
29/05/2006
Vyacheslav Pavlovich KIRILCHUK
19/09/1981
Finogenov Pavel Alekseyevich
Moscow
27/08/2005 to
24/03/2006
6 month(s) and 26 day(s)
1,000
4613/09
25/11/2008
Valentin Anatolyevich SYASKO
19/03/1964
19/07/2006 to
22/09/2008
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 4 day(s)
2,300
500
29899/09
04/05/2009
Dmitriy Vladimirovich ARSHINOV
07/01/1976
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
12/12/2008 to
20/10/2009
10 month(s) and 9 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
1,300
20064/13
13/02/2013
Vasiliy Aleksandrovich ANISIMOV
13/09/1981
12/07/2010 to
20/02/2012
22/05/2013 to
10/02/2014
11/02/2015 to
29/12/2015
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 9 day(s)
8 month(s) and 20 day(s)
10 month(s) and 19 day(s)
3,300
23850/13
11/03/2013
Aleksandr Konstantinovich VANYARKHA
23/08/1971
16/12/2008 to
23/10/2013
4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)
5,100
69323/13
07/10/2013
Andrey Yuryevich NASLEDKOV
21/06/1965
02/11/2012
pending
More than
3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 day(s)
4,100
76881/13
19/11/2013
Nikolay Nikolayevich MUKHAMETVALIYEV
21/02/1987
13/01/2012
pending
More than
4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 day(s)
4,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy