THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TRENCHENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 65143/19 and 14 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Trenchenkov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2022,
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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. 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 unreasonably 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-LAW11. In applications nos. 1815/20, 14099/20 and 15257/20, the 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to detention in a metal cage during court hearings; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees and lack of speedy review of detention matters.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. 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, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court further 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 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 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 23 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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]
65143/19
10/12/2019
Vyacheslav Yuryevich TRENCHENKOV
1961
Zmanovskiy Nikolay Vitalyevich
Irkutsk
25/04/2018 to
28/05/2020
Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk,
Irkutsk Regional Court
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
2,200
1815/20
27/12/2019
Vladimir Vasilyevich SHEVCHENKO
1968
Meleshko Aleksandr Valeryevich
St Petersburg
15/03/2018 to
19/11/2019
Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - order of 26/07/2019, appeal on 09/09/2019,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - on 19/11/2019 in the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in prison vans from 06/06/2018 to 19/11/2019,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport.
9,750
2178/20
25/12/2019
Valeriy Nikolayevich FEDOTOV
1972
Motovilov Andrey Nikolayevich
Omsk
07/03/2019 to
20/01/2020
Kuybishevskiy District Court of Omsk,
Omsk Regional Court
10 month(s) and 14 day(s)
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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
1,000
7665/20
20/01/2020
Sergey Petrovich VOLKODAV
1966
Yurunov Pavel Viktorovich
Moscow
13/05/2019
pending
Basmannyy District Court, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 day(s)
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding, or absconding
3,000
8049/20
04/02/2020
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SLIVKO
1983
Kobelev Denis Valeryevich
Moscow
02/10/2019
pending
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)
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
2,700
11871/20
13/02/2020
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich PERFILYEV
1975
Kuzmin Aleksey Valeryevich
Samara
22/03/2019
pending
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 3 year(s) and 23 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
3,100
12144/20
21/02/2020
Mikhail Sergeyevich KISELEV
1987
Rozhin Roman Aleksandrovich
Moscow
22/11/2019
pending
Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding, or absconding
2,500
13245/20
26/02/2020
Pavel Igorevich KUZNETSOV
1977
Kachalina Yuliya Andreyevna
St Petersburg
31/10/2018 to
07/09/2020
Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)
collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; white-collar crime charges (bribe)
2,100
14099/20
21/02/2020
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VYDYSH
1976
Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna
Moscow
21/06/2018 to
22/07/2020
Rostov-on-Don garrison Military Court, Military Court of the North‑Caucasus Circuit
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 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. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in overcrowded vans (either in the common compartment or alone in the glass cubicle) since 22/06/2018; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage during court hearings before the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Military Court since 22/06/2019.
9,750
15257/20
10/03/2020
Abdurakhmon Suleymonovich SOATOV
1990
Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich
Moscow
24/08/2019 to
14/09/2020
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 22 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal review of the detention orders of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow of 22/10/2019, 20/11/2019, 18/12/2019 took 30-60 days (appeal decision of the Moscow City Court of 21/11/2019, 16/01/2020, 21/01/2020).
1,600
16646/20
23/03/2020
Sergeyus KHOLCHEVAS
1979
Mazitov Marat Farukovich
Moscow
12/06/2018 to
01/09/2020
Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s)
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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
2,300
17036/20
16/03/2020
Sergey Vyacheslavovich VARFOLOMEYEV
1967
Lugantsev Konstantin Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don
25/04/2018 to
25/12/2019
Krasnodar Regional Court, Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi
1 year(s) and 8 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 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
1,900
19572/20
08/05/2020
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ZAKHARCHENKO
1990
Shuravina Olga Vladislavovna
Krasnodar
21/11/2018 to
19/06/2020
Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 30 day(s)
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
1,700
19809/20
02/04/2020
Sergey Fedorovich RUBEZHNOY
1974
Koshev Vladimir Vladimirovich
Stavropol
26/06/2018
pending
Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court
More than 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 19 day(s)
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, 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
4,000
20533/20
21/04/2020
Savva Usementayevich ALEKSEYEV
1979
Yarlykova Yelena Nikolayevna
Moscow
05/07/2017 to
19/02/2020
Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.
2,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.