THIRD SECTION
CASE OF WALTER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 58104/14, 12566/15, 13335/15, 15383/15,
18943/15, 21219/15 and 23554/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 July 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Walter 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 Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2016,
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”).
3. Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no. 21219/15, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the speediness of the review of his detention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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
7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read 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.”
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, including the Court’s approach to the calculation of the six-month time-limit (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 130 and 135, 22 May 2012 and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, § 80, 25 June 2015, with further references), it considers that in the present cases 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. In application no. 21219/15, the applicant submitted an additional complaint about a delay in the examination of his appeal against the detention order. The complaint raises an issue under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see Idalov, cited above, § 154, with further references). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor it is inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also disclose a violation of Article 5 § 4 the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the speediness of the review of detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, admissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention raised under well-established case-law of the Court in application no. 21219/15;
6. 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 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
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 name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Representative name and location
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]
58104/14
25/01/2015
Vera WALTER
08/04/1977
29/05/2014 to
23/10/2015
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
1,500
12566/15
18/01/2015
Aleksey Viktorovich SMORCHKOV
16/12/1976
10/04/2008 to
07/05/2010
13/02/2014 to
08/12/2014
2 year(s) and 28 day(s)
9 month(s) and 26 day(s)
3,100
13335/15
24/02/2015
Vyacheslav Grigoryevich KALISTRATOV
09/03/1983
Pakhomova Olga Vyacheslavovna
Samara
30/04/2014
pending
More than
2 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2,200
15383/15
10/03/2015
Vladimir Sergeyevich SHCHERBININ
14/01/1984
23/11/2013
pending
More than
2 year(s) and
7 month(s) and 9 day(s)
2,700
18943/15
08/04/2015
Denis Anatolyevich SOSHNEV
28/02/1981
28/04/2013
pending
More than
3 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 4 day(s)
3,200
21219/15
13/04/2015
Olgert Nikolayevich KUZMIN
27/12/1989
30/05/2013
pending
More than
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
4,000
23554/15
06/05/2015
Rafayel Zarifkhanovich USUBYAN
13/05/1975
Dzhabirov Asad Sadykhovich
Moscow
30/07/2014
pending
More than
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy