THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SOBOLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applicatiosn nos. 45057/06 and 6 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 November 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sobolev 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 19 October 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. 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:
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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia (nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 49-53, 16 February 2017, regarding absence of an effective opportunity for detainees to attend hearings in their civil cases) and Yudayev v. Russia (no. 40258/03, § 81, 15 January 2009, concerning a lack of procedural guarantees during the examination of the detention matter in view of the applicant’s and/or his lawyer’s absence from the proceedings).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 45057/06 and 9663/10, the applicants also raised other complaints under various 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 nos. 45057/06 and 9663/10 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. 45057/06 and 9663/10 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 9 November 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]
45057/06
15/06/2006
Sergey Aleksandrovich Sobolev
11/02/1960
19/04/2006 to
18/08/2006
4 month(s)
Art. 5 (4) lack of procedural guarantees during the examination of a detention matter - neither the applicant nor his defence lawyer were present at the appeal hearing of 10/05/2006 held by the Krasnodar Regional Court concerning the applicant’s detention
1,300
9663/10
11/01/2010
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich Zakharov
18/06/1977
21/07/2007 to
15/06/2010
2 year(s) and
10 month(s) and
26 day(s)
3,100
15191/10
11/02/2010
Aleksandr Aleksadnrovich Melnikov
01/01/1974
30/09/2009 to
05/04/2010
6 month(s) and
7 day(s)
1,000
72052/11
24/10/2011
Eres Saryg-Oolovich Badynam
18/12/1980
13/03/2011 to
14/06/2012
1 year(s) and
3 month(s) and
2 day(s)
Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - first-instance court hearings, in which the applicant was absent despite of his request to appear - Kyzyl Town Court of the Tyva Republic - 27/07/2011; Appeal hearings - the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic - 06/12/2011
1,800
43052/16
11/07/2016
Andrey Gennadyevich Krasnov
24/05/1979
11/04/2016 to
28/12/2016
8 month(s) and
18 day(s)
1,000
56799/16
21/09/2016
Artem Dmitriyevich Mamotko
29/03/1984
Kondratyev Aleksey Borisovich
Moscow
18/01/2013
pending
More than
4 year(s) and
8 month(s) and 11 days
4,900
63096/16
21/10/2016
Radik Nailevich Khamidullin
29/01/1985
12/10/2013 to
30/06/2015
10/02/2016
pending
1 year(s) and
8 month(s) and
19 day(s)
More than
1 year(s) and
7 month(s) and
19 day(s)
3,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy