THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHIROKIKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 30532/07 and 6 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 July 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shirokikh 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 15 June 2017,
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. In application no. 30532/07 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 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. REMAINING COMPLAINT
11. In application no. 30532/07 the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in his case, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court. 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 Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, 2 March 2006.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications 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 as regards the complaint raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 30532/07 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 6 July 2017, 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
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
30532/07
27/06/2007
Dmitriy Sergeyevich Shirokikh
13/05/1983
13/03/2003 to
27/03/2006
03/05/2007 to
03/10/2008
3 year(s) and 15 day(s)
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 12/03/2003-19/04/2009, two levels of jurisdiction; two rounds of proceedings (Judgment of 27/03/2006 reversed on cassation appeal on 03/05/2007; new judgment of 03/10/2008 upheld on cassation appeal on 19/04/2009)
6,000
36187/10
05/06/2010
Maksim Borisovich Olendarev
28/04/1975
10/04/2009 to
17/01/2011
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s)
2,000
11743/16
16/02/2016
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Kamenev
21/04/1975
28/02/2014
pending
More than 3 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 25 day(s)
3,300
28308/16
06/05/2016
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Muchkov
30/04/1987
27/09/2013 to
05/06/2014
13/11/2014
pending
8 month(s) and 10 day(s)
More than 2 year(s) and
6 month(s) and 10 day(s)
3,300
50480/16
12/08/2016
Igor Yevgenyevich Pukhachev
07/06/1980
Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna
Kazan
04/12/2012 to
09/06/2016
3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)
3,700
50682/16
15/08/2016
Gennadiy Vladimirovich Chernov
10/07/1976
Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna
Kazan
04/12/2012 to
09/06/2016
3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)
3,700
50777/16
15/08/2016
Aleksey Anatolyevich Fedorov
22/10/1979
Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna
Kazan
04/12/2012 to
09/06/2016
3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)
3,700
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy