CASE OF SINYUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SINYUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 39041/15 and 5 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 July 2018

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

In the case of Sinyushkin and Others v. Russia,

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

Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 June 2018,

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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions 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:

“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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. In application no. 39041/15, the applicant also submitted complaints which raised issues under Article 3 of 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) and Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018.

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In applications nos. 47454/17 and 49467/17 the applicants also complained under other Articles of the Convention.

13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. 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.”

15. 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.

16. 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 complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 47454/17 and 49467/17 inadmissible;

3. Holds that these complaints 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 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised 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 12 July 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
              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

Courts which

issued detention

orders/examined

appeals

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]   

39041/15

16/07/2015

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Sinyushkin

07/01/1982

Filatyev Vladislav Aleksandrovich

Kaliningrad

23/01/2014 to

18/04/2016

2 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

27 day(s)

Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad / Kaliningrad Regional Court;

- 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 reoffending, colliding 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 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms. Placement in a metal cage during hearings before the 1st and the 2nd instance courts granting / extending pre-trial detention: before the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad on 25/01/2015, 19/03/2015, 18/05/2015, and 19/06/2015; before the Kaliningrad Regional Court, by means of video link, on 09/02/2015, 27/03/2015, 27/05/2015, 26/06/15, and on 03/07/2015.

9,750   

33868/17

30/03/2017

Dmitriy Robertovich Bikbulatov

17/09/1968

Bogateyeva Alina Robertovna

Kazan

03/04/2013 to

05/02/2018

4 year(s) and

10 month(s) and 3 day(s)

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan / Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

- collective detention orders;

- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;

- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

5,100   

47454/17

27/06/2017

Mikhail Vasilyevich Burashnikov

12/09/1992

Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich

Astrakhan

05/12/2015 to

27/02/2017

1 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

23 day(s)

Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan / Astrakhan Regional Court

- 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

1,300   

49467/17

28/06/2017

Aleksandr Gennadyevich Kurdyubov

25/08/1997

Dereza Aleksey

Volgograd

23/09/2016 to

24/05/2018

1 year(s) and

8 month(s) and

2 day(s)

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd / Volzhsk Town Court / Volgograd Regional Court

- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;

- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

1,900   

51883/17

13/07/2017

Dmitriy Liveryevich Cherepanov

26/08/1969

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich

Krasnoyarsk

15/01/2016 to

09/04/2018

2 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

26 day(s)

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;

- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

2,300   

53181/17

14/07/2017

Vitaliy Aleksandrovich Popov

13/11/1984

Pekhteleva Viktoriya Viktorovna

Moscow

14/03/2017

pending

More than

1 year(s) and

2 month(s) and 17 day(s)

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow / Moscow City Court

- 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

1,300

[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy