FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 50/22 and 17 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Surov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2024,
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 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
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.
JURISDICTION6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 4 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
Acting Deputy Registrar President
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’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
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]
50/22
05/12/2021
David Valeryevich SUROV
1999
Yazykova Natalya Aleksandrovna
Maykop
11/03/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Maykop Town Court of the Adygeya Republic, Supreme Court of the Adygeya Republic
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
1,700
2550/22
15/12/2021
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV
1977
Tseytlina Olga Pavlovna
St Petersburg
22/06/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 26 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
St Petersburg City Court, 02/08/2021, appeals lodged on 04/08/2021 and 10/08/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 15/09/2021;
St Petersburg City Court, 28/10/2021, appeals lodged on 28/10/2021 and 29/10/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 25/11/2021;
2,800
6597/22
01/04/2022
Eldar Afrailovich GUSEYNOV
1986
21/03/2016
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Regional Court
6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)
collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
5,000
8488/22
22/01/2022
Timur Rimovich RAKHIMYANOV
1992
23/05/2018
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 day(s)
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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 29/06/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 21/07/2021
4,900
10421/22
01/02/2022
Aleksandr Sergeyevich RODIONOV
1959
Volkova Yelena Viktorovna
Moscow
27/04/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 21 day(s)
collective detention orders; 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, colluding or absconding
1,500
12880/22
31/01/2022
Pavel Vladimirovich NARKEVICH
1964
Sayevets Igor Yuryevich
Moscow
08/07/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Krasnogorsk Town Court, Moscow Regional Court
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 9 day(s)
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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnogorsk Town Court, from 23/08/2021 to 20/10/2021
9,750
13141/22
02/02/2022
Sergey Anatolyevich TOROP
1961
Khoroshev Ivan Aleksandrovich
Krasnoyarsk
22/09/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26 day(s)
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; collective detention orders
2,000
13251/22
02/02/2022
Ilya Olegovich SNIGIREV
1999
Dobryanskiy Mark Vladimirovich
Perm
30/07/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Perm, Perm Regional Court
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
1,200
13513/22
08/02/2022
Valentin Mikhaylovich SHCHUKIN
1955
Kirillov Yuriy Mikhaylovich
Moscow
03/10/2021 to
16/09/2022
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Omutninskiy District Court of the Kirov Region
11 month(s) and 14 day(s)
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
1,000
14129/22
10/02/2022
Eleonora Eduardovna CHECHENOVA
1992
Anzarov Zaurbek Anatolyevich
Kislovodsk
11/02/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, Supreme Court of the the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
2,800
14403/22
21/02/2022
Damir Gazinurovich KHASANSHIN
1997
01/06/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Aviastroitelnyy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
2,400
15620/22
25/02/2022
Yevgeniy Ilyich SKATOV
1975
24/12/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
1,900
16597/22
01/03/2022
Lachyn Yusif Ogly MURADOV
1988
Grigoryev Aleksey Valentinovich
Vyborg
19/11/2020 to
19/01/2022
Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 1 day(s)
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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage on numerous occasions during court hearings at the Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region, from 20/11/2020 to 19/01/2022
9,750
17349/22
25/02/2022
Aleksandr Vladimirovich ROZOCHKIN
1989
16/11/2019
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow, Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Supreme Court of Russia
2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 1 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders
3,100
18331/22
15/03/2022
Anton Aleksandrovich KOLOSKOV
1983
21/03/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)
collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re‑offending, colluding or absconding; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial
1,600
19935/22
11/03/2022
Konstantin Vasilyevich KHOROBRYY
1981
09/11/2014
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court
7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021, appeal lodged on 27/12/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 03/02/2022
5,500
34008/22
07/02/2022
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich VYSOKIKH
1966
11/12/2014
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court
7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 day(s)
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; collective detention orders
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021, appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court on 14/10/2021
5,500
34033/22
25/06/2022
Artem Gennadyevich PROTOPOPOV
1982
Olgerdt Oksana Gennadyevna
Moscow
19/08/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 29 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding
1,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.