THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LASTOCHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 7121/15 and 6 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 March 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lastochkin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 March 2018,
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. Some 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. 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 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.”
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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In application no. 20530/17, the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 5 § 5 which also raised issues under the Convention, given 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 62, 25 October 2007.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 24209/17 the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles 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 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. 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 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. 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. 24209/17 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. 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);
5. 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 29 March 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
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 name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Courts which issued detention orders/
examined appeals
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]
7121/15
29/01/2015
Yuriy Vasilyevich Lastochkin
23/04/1965
Markaryan Ruben Valeryevich
Moscow
25/10/2013 to
22/09/2015
1 year(s) and
10 month(s) and
29 day(s)
Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl; Yaroslavl Regional Court;
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
-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, colliding or absconding;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
2,100
56307/16
20/09/2016
Artem Vladimirovich Bondar
19/05/1986
Mikhaylova Yuliya Nikolayevna
Krasnoyarsk
17/09/2013 to
10/07/2017
3 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 24 day(s)
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
4,000
10/17
04/01/2017
Khristofor Leonidovich Golovatov
28/11/1970
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
17/09/2015
Pending.
More than
2 year(s) and
4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don;
Rostov Regional Court
-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, colliding or absconding;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
2,500
16113/17
17/02/2017
Oleg Aleksandrovich Ryzhakov
30/01/1970
Moiseyev Artem Viktorovich
Moscow
08/12/2015 to
26/04/2017
1 year(s) and
4 month(s) and
19 day(s)
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
-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, colliding or absconding;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
1,500
19991/17
22/02/2017
Devletkhan Medetkhanovich Alikhanov
19/08/1958
Shogin Mikhail Igorevich
Petrozavodsk
03/02/2015
Pending.
More than
3 year(s)
and 8 day(s)
Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Kareliya Republic; Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
-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, colliding or absconding;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
3,100
20530/17
04/03/2017
Aleksey Vladimirovich Fedorov
01/01/1975
Klyubin Sergey Nikolayevich
Velikiy Novgorod
20/02/2015 to
29/03/2017
2 year(s) and
1 month(s) and 10 day(s)
Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region; Pestovskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court
-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, colliding or absconding;
- 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 (5) - Lack of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.
2,900
24209/17
21/03/2017
Magomed Tsikhilchiyevich Abdulayev
23/02/1979
Abramov Igor Davidovich
Makhachkala
13/10/2015 to
11/05/2017
1 year(s) and
6 month(s) and 29 day(s)
Essentuki Town Court;
Stavropol Regional Court;
Kirovskiy District Court of Makhachkala;
Supreme Court of Dagestan Republic
-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, colliding or absconding;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
1,700
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy