THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TSEBOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 32041/17 and 7 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tseboyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2019,
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. Notice of the applications was given 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.
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 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.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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
(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 27 June 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
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
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order/examined appeal
Length of detention
Specific defects
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i]
32041/17
06/04/2017
Alan Vladislavovich Tseboyev
26/09/1976
01/03/2012
pending
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
More than 7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and
4 day(s)
collective detention orders;
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 as the case progressed
9,400
60787/17
18/07/2017
Ruzil Rimovich Davletshin
02/09/1988
15/10/2014 to
08/12/2017
Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit
3 year(s) and
1 month(s) and
24 day(s)
collective detention orders;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
4,200
2840/18
30/11/2017
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Rashchupkin
06/01/1978
06/12/2012 to
27/12/2017
Korolyev Town Court;
Moscow Regional Court
5 year(s) and
22 day(s)
collective detention orders;
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 as the case progressed
6,600
2956/18
27/11/2017
Leonid Vladimirovich Lobkov
30/03/1961
28/11/2016 to
09/04/2018
Syktyvkar Town Court;
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
1 year(s) and
4 month(s) and
13 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;
2,000
3704/18
03/01/2018
Yekaterina Vladimirovna Fedorova
11/10/1972
03/08/2016
pending
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk;
Lipetsk Regional Court
More than 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and
2 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 as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
3,800
5662/18
03/01/2018
Mikhail Vladimirovich Maslov
16/08/1978
08/07/2015
pending
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk;
Lipetsk Regional Court
More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and
28 day(s)
collective detention orders;
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
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;
5,100
21234/18
24/04/2018
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich Prishibskiy
21/11/1991
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
19/11/2017 to
09/07/2018
Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk;
Orenburg Regional Court
7 month(s) and
21 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;
1,300
21283/18
21/04/2018
Magomed Ortsovich Batazhev
22/06/1981
Geroyev Akhmed Daudovich
Moscow
30/03/2016
pending
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Presnenskyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
More than 3 year(s) and 6 day(s)
collective detention orders;
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
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy