FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LUKASHCHUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 35012/19 and 14 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lukashchuk and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 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 their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
JURISDICTION6. 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).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
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, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; 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, 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-LAW12. Some 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), concerning the use of metal cages during court hearings; Idalov, cited above, §§ 154-58, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters and poor conditions of transport of detainees; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, related to conditions of detention of detainees and the lack of an effective domestic reemdy to complain about poor detention conditions; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the applications admissible;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 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 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
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]
35012/19
21/06/2019
Artem Markovich LUKASHCHUK
2000
Shkryuba Roman Vladimirovich
Ivanovo
19/10/2018 to
29/06/2020
Shuyskiy Town Court of Ivanovo Region; Ivanovo Region Court
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 11 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;
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a glass cabin in the Shuyskiy Town Court of the Ivanovo Region, in the conditions of extreme overcrowding, and in a metal cage in the Ivanovo Regional Court between 17/05/2019 and 29/06/2020
9,750
52734/19
23/09/2019
Yuriy Anatolyevich YEKISHEV
1964
Dobrovolskaya Svetlana Igorevna
Moscow
11/04/2019
-
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Court of Appeal
3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 6 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; 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 in a metal cage in a courtroom at the Khamovnicheskiy District Court, pending since 13/04/2019 – as of 16/09/2022
9,750
47285/20
05/10/2020
Nikolay Sergeyevich SMIRNOV
1985
03/07/2020 to
22/04/2021
15/10/2021
-
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Perm Regional Court, Seventh Cassation Court of Common Jurisdiction
9 month(s) and 20 day(s)
11 month(s) and 2 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits,
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-1 Perm region - refusal of long-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits, refusal of phone calls with wife
4,550
50738/20
26/10/2020
Denis Yevgenyevich BONDAREV
1997
Balysheva Irina Yuryevna
Cherepanovo
22/05/2020
-
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Pervomayskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26 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
2,400
52777/20
16/04/2021
Vitaliy Vladimirovich GURTOVOY
1982
04/11/2019 to
26/07/2021
Norilsk Town Court, Central District Court of Krasnoyarsk
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention –
Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 03/02/2020 - Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 25/03/2021 (the appeal was lodged on 10/02/2021),
Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 26/05/2021 - Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 27/07/2021 (the appeal was lodged on 31/05/2021);
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - On 29 occasions the applicant was held in a metal cage during the court hearings in the course of the criminal proceedings against him: Norilsk Town Court and Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk: from 04/11/2019 to 26/07/2021.
9,750
9041/21
12/01/2021
Ivan Pavlovich YEZHOV
1987
Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich
Krasnoyarsk
03/04/2020 to
19/05/2021
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement of the applicant in a metal cage in courtrooms at the Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, from 07/04/2020 to 31/03/2022,
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits,
Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - refusal of long-term family visits. The applicant is in SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region since 07/04/2020. He requested long-term visits on several occasions from the SIZO administration but to no avail; physical separation during short-term visits
9,750
13046/21
14/02/2021
Roman Nikolayevich TARASENKO
1987
16/11/2015
-
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appeal Court
6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 1 day(s)
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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of conditions of detention pending trial when the detention is currently ongoing,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - multiple transfers between the remand prison and the courthouse since 25/01/2017 and pending as of 16/09/2022: inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, overcrowding; the applicant is transported with 14 inmates while the maximum capacity of a prison van is 9 persons (0.3 sq. m of personal space),
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - from 18/11/2015 and pending as of 16/09/2022 overcrowding (1-1,5 sq. m of personal space), lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
16,300
15402/21
07/03/2021
Aleksandr Alekseyevich KISELEV
1992
Savin Vyacheslav Vasilyevich
Stavropol
22/07/2020
–
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court
2 year(s) and 1 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 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
2,200
20331/21
25/03/2021
David Aleksandrovich ARUTYUNYAN
1984
Savin Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Stavropol
11/08/2020 to
14/05/2021
Sovetskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz, Supreme Court of Severnaya Ossetia Republic
9 month(s) and 4 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
1,000
20425/21
25/03/2021
Vitaliy Olegovich BOYCHENKO
1993
11/12/2019 to
19/03/2021
Six Cassation Court, Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 9 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in a van between 26/12/2019 -05/10/2021 and on 08/10/2021 and 15/10/2021:
transport from SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic to the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; applicant transported on numerous occasions; inadequate temperature; 0.2 sq. m per person; overcrowding; each transfer lasted 5 to 6 hours; no or restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air; passive smoking; constant video surveillance in a van; lack of or insufficient natural light; lack of or insufficient electric light; lack of or insufficient quantity of food; inadequate temperature; 4 inmates in a compartment with a designed capacity for 2 persons; 3.5 hours’ trip.
1,800
26035/21
22/04/2021
Sergey Vladimirovich YERMOLENKO
1972
Nikonov Maksim Andreyevich
Vladimir
16/07/2020
-
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir, Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir, Vladimir Regional Court
2 year(s) and 2 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir, 22/12/2020 (appellate complaint reached the court on 25/12/2020) - Vladimir Regional Court,
18/01/2021 (24 days)
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir, 22/03/2021 (appellate complaint reached the court on 26/03/2021) - Vladimir Regional Court, 19/04/2021 (24 days)
3,000
26067/21
20/04/2021
Linur Shamilevich MURTAZIN
1978
12/12/2017 to
17/03/2021
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 6 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in a van on multiple occasions since 17/01/2018, 0.33 sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, applicant transported on numerous occasions, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
4,400
26784/21
02/05/2021
Albert Aydarovich SABIROV
1990
21/04/2018
-
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, Fourth Appeal Court
4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 27 day(s)
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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decisions by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic of 17/02/2021 and 30/04/2021, reviewed by the Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on, respectively, 12/03/2021 and 03/06/2021.
5,900
38254/21
12/07/2021
Ivan Viktorovich TIMOFEYEV
1981
21/04/2020 to
17/06/2021
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul of Altai Region, Altai Regional Court, Fifth Appeal Court
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 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
1,200
44148/21
10/08/2021
Gennadiy Grigoryevich KIRILOV
1969
25/10/2017
-
Pending as of 16/09/2022
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court
4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits,
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusal of short-term family visits in SIZO-2 Republic of Tatarstan, the applicant’s wife and daughter were not allowed to visit – detention pending as of 16/09/2022
6,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.