THIRD SECTION
CASE OF VIKHAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 32357/05 and 5 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 February 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vikharev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 January 2017,
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 applications were communicated 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
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 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.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 32357/05, 1827/16 and 8773/16 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 95-98, 2 March 2006; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 100-119, 10 January 2012 and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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 that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 16 February 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen ReidHelena Jäderblom
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 name
Date of birth
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
32357/05
23/08/2005
Vladimir Alekseyevich Vikharev
18/07/1963
03/03/2005 to
06/06/2005
3 month(s) and 4 day(s)
Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - Absence before the first instance court’s hearing on 15/10/2008; a labour dispute between the applicant and the penitentiary administration.
1,300
49012/13
09/07/2013
Vladimir Vladimirovich Vovchenko
23/12/1979
10/04/2013
pending
More than 3 year(s) and
7 month(s) and 29 day(s)
3,800
42110/15
05/02/2016
Aleksandr Vasilyevich Chernitenko
19/08/1977
12/11/2014 to
22/06/2016
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 11 day(s)
1,800
1827/16
01/12/2015
Aleksandr Anatolyevich Fedonin
30/09/1976
05/12/2012
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 18 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - inadequate facilities for defence,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law –
5,300
8773/16
11/01/2016
Ernest Talyatovich Memetov
04/06/1988
22/07/2010
pending
More than 6 year(s) and
4 month(s) and 17 day(s)
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 4 years 11 months, investigation 3 years 12 months, examined by domestic court, dismissed on cassation by the Vologda Regional Court as manifestly ill-founded 25.04.16.
8,500
16417/16
15/03/2016
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich Kamenev
02/07/1976
28/02/2014
pending
More than 2 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 11 day(s)
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy