THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MUKHIN AND BASIYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 24655/16 and 57261/17)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mukhin and Basiyeva 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 2 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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention.
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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention6. The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention (for further details see the appended table). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
7. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4).
8. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154‑58, 161‑65, 22 May 2012, and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 219‑48, 31 May 2011, 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 appeal proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS11. The applicants also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined the applications 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.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78‑80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874/11, §§ 113-15, 18 February 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016 and Karaosmanoglu and Özden v. Turkey, no. 4807/08, §§ 89-91, 17 June 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
15. 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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention, as laid down in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these complaints, as laid down in the appended table, disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention; 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 June 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 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
First-instance court and date of detention order
Appeal instance court and date of decision
Procedural deficiencies
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
24655/16
24/02/2016
Yuriy Ignatyevich MUKHIN
1949
Visentin Mjriana
Lainate
Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, 18/09/2015
Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, 21/10/2015
Moscow City Court, 16/10/2015
Moscow City Court, 16/11/2015
Lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154‑58, 22 May 2012)
500
57261/17
31/07/2017
Fariza Kazbekovna BASIYEVA
1989
Baskayeva Taisiya Islamovna
Vladikavkaz
Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz, 26/12/2016
Supreme Court of the Republic of the North Ossetiya‑Alaniya, 01/02/2017
Lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)
500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.