THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHAFOROST v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 1797/20 and 26518/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 April 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shaforost v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 March 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 relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also made additional complaints (see below) stemming from the same set of facts.
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 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He 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 applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
other ALLEGED VIOLATIONs under well-established case-law11. The applicant also complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see the 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 well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012).
12. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 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, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013, 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 sum indicated in the appended table.
15. 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,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of an excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 14 April 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
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]
1797/20
27/04/2020
AND
26518/20
28/03/2020
Viktor Aleksandrovich SHAFOROST
1979
06/06/2018 to
28/10/2019
Moscow City Court, Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 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;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
First instance court and date of detention order
Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, 16/09/2019;
Appeal instance court and date of decision
Moscow City Court, 01/11/2019
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-158, 22 May 2012).
1,950
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.