THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TIMCHENKO AND SHESTUN v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 24672/18 and 5675/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 January 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Timchenko and Shestun v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2020,
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. The applicants also complained under other Convention provisions about the events stemming from the same set of facts.
THE LAWJOINDER 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.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 reads 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.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In application no. 5675/19 the applicant also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the length of the detention review proceedings (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, 22 May 2012.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 24672/18 the applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his pre-trial detention.
13. The Court has examined those complaints and finds that the applicant should avail himself of the new compensatory remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).
It follows that this part of application no. 24672/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.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,Decides to join the applications;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 application no. 24672/18 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints 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 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 21 January 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
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’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]
24672/18
17/05/2018
Yuriy Anatolyevich TIMCHENKO
1975
08/12/2016 to
08/08/2018
Smolnenskiy District Court of St Petersburg,
St Petersburg City Court
1 year(s) and 8 month(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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
2,100
5675/19
27/12/2018
Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich SHESTUN
1964
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
13/06/2018
pending
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow,
Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
20 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.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the detention order of 10/08/2018 was only reviewed on 24/09/2018; detention order of 08/11/2018 was only reviewed by the court on 05/12/2018.
4,400
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy