CASE OF NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 29715/11 and 27 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT
(Revision)

STRASBOURG

16 October 2025

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

In the case of Namchyl-Ool and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 10 June 2021),

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2025,

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, including application no. 53000/18 lodged by Mr Aleksey Vyacheslavovich Sushkov on 1 November 2018.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 10 June 2021, the Court held, inter alia, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of pre-trial detention in respect of several applications, including application no. 53000/18 lodged by Mr Sushkov. The Court also decided to award Mr Sushkov 2,700 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.

3.  On 2 February 2022, referring to Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court, the applicant asked the Court to correct the mistake in his patronymic in the text of the judgment. While his name was indicated in the judgment as Aleksey Valeryevich Sushkov, his correct name was Aleksey Vyacheslavovich Sushkov. He submitted the relevant documents, including a copy of his internal passport. The applicant also brought to the Court’s attention the fact that on 14 January 2021 it had delivered a judgment in the case of Peyet and Others v. Russia, nos. 51122/07 and 9 others, in which it had found a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of pre-trial detention awarding him EUR 1,300 for non-pecuniary damage. The Government had made the relevant payment.

4.  On 16 January 2025 the Court examined the applicant’s request and ruled that it should be considered in substance as being two-fold, a request for rectification within the meaning of Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court and a request for revision within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of the Court. It also decided to dispense with inviting the Government to submit observations, regard being had to the Government’s abstention from participation in the proceedings before it.

THE LAW

5.  The Court reiterates that it has jurisdiction to examine the present case (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). It further reiterates that the respondent Government are not released from the duty to cooperate with the Court. Nor is the Court prevented from continuing with the examination of applications where it retains jurisdiction (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia ((dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2 others, §§ 435-39, 30 November 2022, and Svetova and Others v. Russia, no. 54714/17, §§ 29-31, 24 January 2023). The Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate from a party’s failure or refusal to participate effectively in the proceedings (Rule 44C of the Rules of Court).

6.  The Court considers that the applicant’s request for rectification of the judgment of 10 June 2021 was lodged belatedly (see paragraph 3 above). However, it decides to rectify the mistake pointed out by the applicant of its own motion pursuant to Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court. The relevant parts of the judgment should read Aleksey Vyacheslavovich Sushkov.

7.  The Court further considers that the judgment of 10 June 2021 should be revised (see paragraph 4 above) pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of the Court, the relevant parts of which provide:

“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment.”

8.  The Court accepts that the error in the applicant’s patronymic “was unknown to the Court” when the judgment of 10 June 2021 was delivered. The Court further accepts, albeit on arguable grounds, that that fact “could not reasonably have been known” to the applicant, his application having been lodged by his representative at the time when the applicant was in pre-trial detention and their communication could have been hindered. Nor does the Court doubt that the erroneous indication of the applicant’s patronymic had a decisive influence for its findings in respect of the present application (see, by contrast Mindek v. Croatia (revision), no. 6169/13, §§ 8-28, 11 September 2018). As a result of the error, the Court examined the present application as having been lodged by another person, while the complaint raised by the applicant had already been the subject matter of an earlier application (see Peyet and Others, cited above, in which the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and afforded just satisfaction to him). The said error also prevented the Court from establishing correctly the relevant facts (the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention). Lastly, the Court also takes note of the applicant’s submission that the Peyet and Others judgment was executed, and that the applicant received non-pecuniary damage awarded to him.

9.  Regard being had to the above, the Court finds that the present application is substantially the same as a matter that it has already examined within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention. Accordingly, it considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of application no. 53000/18 (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

10.  Accordingly, application no. 53000/18 should be struck out of the list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)