THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STRYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 37632/08 and 7 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Stryukov 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 7 December 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 complaints under Article 5 § 4 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 COMPLAINTS
11. Some applicants submitted complaints under Article 5 § 4 of 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 150-164, 22 May 2012, insofar as they concern lack of procedural safeguards and absence of speedy review of the detention matters.
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 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 11 January 2018, 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
Courts which issued detention orders/examined appeals
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
37632/08
29/07/2008
Aleksandr Ivanovich Stryukov
21/03/1982
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
17/03/2007 to
03/02/2010
2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 18 day(s)
Nizhnekamsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic/Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic/Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
- 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 re-offending, 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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal proceedings on the applicant’s complaint against the detention order of 10/06/2009 (Appeal decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27/08/2009)
4,000
4811/09
04/12/2008
Vasiliy Alekseyevich Buraga
26/12/1960
Lasnov Stanislav Nikolayevich
Yekaterinburg
24/05/2008 to
22/04/2011
2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30 day(s)
Verkh-Isetsk District Court of Yekaterinburg/Sverdlovsk Regional Court/Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
- 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.
Art. 5 (4) – lack of procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters - The applicant’s absence from a hearing on 24/05/2008, when by the decision of the Verkh-Isetsky District Court of Yekaterinburg his detention was prolonged. No explanation why his presence could not have been ensured.
4,000
58232/10
29/07/2010
Sergey Yuristovich Zaripov
29/06/1966
Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna
St Petersburg
24/01/2007 to
24/02/2011
4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 1 day(s)
St Petersburg City Court/Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
- 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.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The Supreme Court’s review of the applicant’s detention orders (the order of 08/12/2009 was reviewed on 08/02/2010, the order of 29/12/2009 was reviewed on 18/03/2010, the order of 01/02/2010 was reviewed on 25/03/2010).
5,500
1018/11
30/11/2010
Anton Vladimirovich Tkachenko
07/07/1984
Shakirov Rifkat Iskhakovich
Kazan
09/06/2010 to
02/06/2011
11 month(s) and 25 day(s)
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan/Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
- 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. 5 (4) - lack of procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters - Absence of the applicant and his lawyer from the appellate hearing on 22/10/2010 regarding the extension of detention order.
1,300
55313/14
14/07/2014
Arsen Muradovich Kazaryan
23/08/1972
Spiridonov Dmitriy Viktorovich
Arzamas
07/12/2013 to
15/06/2015
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 9 day(s)
Arzamass Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region; Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod/Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;
- use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - 1st instance court detention order - 02/04/2014, Moscow District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; appeal decision - 05/05/2014, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court.
2,200
79690/16
16/12/2016
Nikita Aleksandrovich Pulinets
24/12/1990
Krikun Leonid Leonidovich
St Petersburg
12/04/2016
Pending
More than 1 year(s) and
7 month(s) and 7 day(s)
Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg/St Petersburg City Court
- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
- collective detention orders;
- 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 re-offending, colliding or absconding;
- failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order - Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 26/05/2016;
Appeal decision –
St Petersburg City Court, 18/08/2016.
2,300
8727/17
17/01/2017
Ilya Sergeyevich Sidoruk
03/05/1983
Sagadiyev Aleksey Ernstovich
Moscow
21/05/2015
pending
More than 2 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 29 day(s)
Presnenskyy District Court of Moscow/Moscow City Court
- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
- collective detention orders;
- 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 re-offending, 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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against the detention order of 09/11/2016 was examined on 20/12/2016.
3,400
10401/17
30/01/2017
Nikolay Dmitriyevich Nesterenko
09/10/1949
Platonov Maksim Yevgenyevich
Moscow
16/10/2016 to
24/04/2017
6 month(s) and
9 day(s)
Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Anapa Town Court of the Krasnodar Region/Krasnodar 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 re-offending, colliding or absconding;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
1,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy