CASE OF KUVSHINCHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KUVSHINCHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 39280/19 and 9 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

21 July 2022

 

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

In the case of Kuvshinchikov and Others v. Russia,

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

 Darian Pavli, President,
 Andreas Zünd,
 Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2022,

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 LAW

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.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  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.”

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 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.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  In applications nos. 39280/19, 20881/20, 21125/20 and 22815/20 the applicants 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 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters.

REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In application no. 39280/19 the applicant also raised other complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

13.  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 matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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.”

15.  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.

16.  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,

Decides to join the applications;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. 39280/19 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see 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 21 July 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 

 

 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]

   

39280/19

09/05/2020

Sergey Viktorovich KUVSHINCHIKOV

1980

Anikina Natalya Anatolyevna

Moscow

09/08/2018 to

30/04/2021

Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow; Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 22 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; "white collar" crime

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the applicant’s placement into metal cages in court hearings

 

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – in the Preobrazhenskiy District Court and Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; numerous hearings as of 10/08/2018 until conviction

9,750

   

20881/20

02/05/2020

Rudik Gennadyevich GALUSTYAN

1988

Golub Olga Viktorovna

Suzemka

21/01/2019 to

12/03/2020

Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s)

 

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant complains about the lack of speediness in the review on appeal of the detention orders adopted by the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow on 16/09/2019 and 29/02/2020. The first one was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 13/11/2019, while the appeal against the other one was still pending at the time of introduction of the application on 02/05/2020

1,600

   

21125/20

27/04/2020

Oleg Igorevich CHURA

1986

Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich

Moscow

12/12/2019 to

26/11/2020

Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

11 month(s) and 15 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

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 11/02/2020 extending his pre-trial detention was heard on 11/03/2020 by the appeal court

1,300

   

21260/20

26/05/2020

Andrey Vadimovich KAREPOV

1972

Rayevskiy Artem Aleksandrovich

Moscow

18/11/2019 – pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22 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

 

2,700

   

21263/20

24/03/2020

Roman Aleksandrovich GRIBANOV

1977

Abritsov Anatoliy Vladimirovich

Moscow

03/09/2018 – pending

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; First General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal; Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow

More than 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

 

4,000

   

21834/20

01/06/2020

Mikhail Stepanovich ANTYUKHOV

1981

Ivannikova Olga Aleksandrovna

Mineralnyye Vody

22/05/2018 to

05/03/2020

Mineralnyye Vody Town Court of the Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court

1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

 

2,000

   

21839/20

29/05/2020

Nadezhda Vasilyevna SUDDENOK

1973

Propostin Andrey Aleksandrovich

Tomsk

26/03/2018 – pending

Zavodskoy District Court of Kemerovo; Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo; Kemerovo Regional Court

More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders

 

 

4,300

   

22536/20

01/06/2020

Artur Eduardovich SHARETDINOV

1977

Khabibullin Vadim Rustamovich

Ufa

26/10/2018 to

10/06/2020

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa of the Bashkortostan Republic; Supreme Court of the of the Bashkortostan Republic;

Leninskiy District Court of Ufa of the Bashkortostan Republic;

Fourth Appeal Court

1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s)

 

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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

 

1,800

   

22606/20

23/03/2020

Aleksey Anatolyevich DENISOV

1979

Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna

Moscow

11/02/2020 – pending

Priokskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 29 day(s)

 

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

 

 

2,400

 

22815/20

22/04/2020

Oksana Korneyevna NAUMOVA

1968

Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna

Moscow

01/02/2018 to

01/10/2020

Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; First Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision of 01/10/2019 extending the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was examined on 15/11/2019

3,400

 

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

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy