FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TRETYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 33610/18 and 21 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 Tretyakov 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; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018 and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018, regarding unlawful detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69‑83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Mukhin v. Russia, no. 3642/10, § 77-147, 14 December 2021, concerning conviction for making calls to participate in extremist activities.
13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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 that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms;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]
33610/18
16/07/2018
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TRETYAKOV
1985
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
14/03/2018 to
28/03/2019
Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Primorskiy Regional Court
1 year(s) and 15 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - the applicant transported on numerous occasions in “stakan”-type single-prisoner cubicles from 14/03/2018 to 26/10/2018,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - the applicant was detained as a suspect in excess of 48 hours from 14/03/2018 to 16/03/2018,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant posted a note in his Telegram channel, commenting an article of a famous journalist about peaceful and violent protests; he was convicted of a criminal offence for calls to participate in extremist activities; final decision: Primorye Regional Court on 26/06/2019,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
3,900
13453/19
06/06/2019
Igor Aleksandrovich DONTSOV
1969
06/09/2017
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Moscow City Court
5 year(s) and 11 day(s)
the applicant is charged with misappropriation of budgetary funds - "white collar" crime; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
collective detention orders;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding
5,000
29435/19
24/05/2019
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich MARTYNOV
1972
Matyushin Mikhail Vladimirovich
Moscow
01/02/2017 to
06/02/2019
Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
2 year(s) and 6 day(s)
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, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
2,100
33453/19
19/06/2019
Reyal Kyamal ogly RASULOV
1992
Fleganov Aleksandr Fedorovich
Petrozavodsk
15/08/2015
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Petrozavodsk Town Court of Karelia Republic, Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic
7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
collective detention orders;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
5,000
35997/19
25/06/2019
Vyacheslav Valeryevich KRUGLOV
1989
Khudyakov Aleksandr Kuzmich
Sergiyev Posad
05/03/2019 to
19/07/2019
Sergiyev-Posad Town Court; Moscow Regional Court
4 month(s) and 15 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
1,000
36343/19
25/06/2019
Oleg Viktorovich KRASNOV
1982
Mamedova Yelena Anatolyevna
Samara
28/02/2017 -
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Samarskiy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court, Leninskiy District Court of Samara
5 year(s) and 6 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 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;
5,000
37080/19
01/07/2019
Sergey Dmitriyevich ZAKHAROV
1994
Shogin Mikhail Igorevich
Petrozavodsk
25/05/2018 -
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Karelia Republic, Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 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
4,400
37151/19
02/07/2019
Mikhail Aleksandrovich FOMIN
1976
Simonenkov Igor Nikolayevich
Moscow
20/06/2018 -
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
4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 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 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; collective detention orders
4,300
37841/19
11/07/2019
Nikita Valentinovich KOLESNIKOV
1965
Slyunin Vladimir Vladimirovich
Moscow
17/05/2018 to
12/08/2019
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 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;
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
1,300
38127/19
18/07/2019
Vasiliy Pavlovich SUKHORUKOV
1960
Kolosovskiy Sergey Vyacheslavovich
Yekaterinburg
30/01/2019 to
27/01/2020
Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court
11 month(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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - unrecorded detention between 30/01/2019 at 3.30 pm, and 31/01/2019 at 12.15 a.m.; raised on appeal
1,300
38221/19
25/06/2019
Aleksandr Yuryevich SAFONOV
1974
Aleksandrov Andrey Vitalyevich
Moscow
29/05/2018 -
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
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 19 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;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, from 31/05/2018 to 24/05/2019, 0.5 sq. m per inmate, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and other security arrangements in courtrooms - during hearings on extension of pre-trial detention term at the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow from 31/05/2018 to 24/05/2019
9,750
38695/19
12/07/2019
Van Kuyen TRAN
2019
Kamakin Maksim Ivanovich
St Petersburg
06/10/2018 -
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s)
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and other security arrangements in courtrooms - Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 30/04/2019, on 03/07/2019; St Petersburg City Court on 11/06/2019,
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - lengthy review of detention:
Dzerzhinskiy District Court, 11/06/2019, appeal lodged on 03/05/2019, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 11/06/2019
9,750
38843/19
05/07/2019
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich MEZIN
1988
08/02/2019 -
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Industrialnyy District Court of the Perm Region, Perm Regional Court
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 9 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
white collar crime;
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
3,800
39194/19
20/07/2019
Dmitriy Vladimirovich BOGACHEV
1972
27/11/2016 to
20/01/2019
Vyborgskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, Leningrad Regional Court
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 25 day(s)
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
41384/19
26/07/2019
Artem Dmitriyevich BELOV
1985
Martynov Vyacheslav Anatolyevich
Monastyrshchina
04/02/2019
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Novomoskovsk Town Court of the Tula Region, Tula Regional Court
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 13 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
3,800
41579/19
29/07/2019
Kirill Alekseyevich ADAMOV
1988
28/02/2018 to
15/07/2019
Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalye Regional Court
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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 of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders
1,500
41874/19
26/07/2019
Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich PISAREV
1986
Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich
Astrakhan
21/04/2018 to
18/06/2019
20/06/2019 to
16/09/2019
Trusovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)
2 month(s) and 28 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
"white collar" type crime;
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
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and other security arrangements in courtrooms - Trusovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court (in person and by video conference from a remand prison); multiple hearings between 21/04/2018 and 05/12/2019,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van (Astrakhan / Volgograd / Pyatigorsk) 4 journeys between 24/12/2019 and 09/01/2020, cramped individual compartment ("glass"),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
9,750
57670/19
10/01/2020
Aleksandr Vasilyevich PETROV
1982
25/09/2019 to
16/01/2020
Moskovskiy District Court of Tver, Tver Regional Court
3 month(s) and 23 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;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
1,000
59300/19
08/11/2019
Lidiya Yuryevna PODREZOVA
1991
Alimova Gulmira Kuatovna
Novosibirsk
07/06/2019 -
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 10 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
3,400
6556/20
17/01/2020
Dmitriy Valeryevich GUSAKOV
1983
18/07/2017 to
29/08/2022
Sestroretskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg
5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 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; collective detention orders
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-1 St Petersburg; refusal of long-term family visits; in 2018, 2019 the applicant’s mother requested a long-term visit with him but faced a refusal on the ground that long-term visits are not provided for by the national law,
Art. 14 - in conjunction with art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits
6,500
52695/20
17/06/2021
Ilya Leonidovich VYGUZOV
1978
27/07/2018
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Industrialnyy District Court of Izhevsk, Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtia
More than 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 19 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
4,800
53402/20
01/07/2021
Viktor Vladimirovich KACHAYEV
1992
30/11/2019
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
collective detention orders
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 08/07/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 10/08/2021;
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 29/10/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 30/11/2021
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.