THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60316/08
Bella Andreyevna KOCHNEVA against Russia
and 6 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 January 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
B. Complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention)
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the alleged violations of the Convention.
In particular, in application no. 60316/08, the latest detention order in the applicant’s criminal proceedings in respect of which she brought an appeal was the decision of the Kimrskiy District Court of Tver dated 13 April 2007. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Tver Regional Court on 24 May 2007. The application was lodged with the Court on 8 September 2008, which is more than six months later. The applicant did not appeal against any subsequent detention order issued after 13 April 2007. It follows that the complaint about the unreasonably long detention on remand raised in application no. 60316/08 should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
As regards the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention raised in the remaining applications, the Court notes the relatively short duration of the pre-trial detention for the majority of the applicants. It further observes that while extending the applicants’ detention the domestic courts had relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated violent criminal offences, the particular vulnerability of the victims, the complexity of the criminal cases against the applicants and the existence of a serious risk of their absconding or interfering with justice, confirmed, inter alia, by the pattern of their behavior or psychological condition (see Rydz v. Poland, no. 13167/02, 18 December 2007). The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicants were liable to obstruct justice, to re-offend or abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures, but found them to be inadequate at the time. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ continued detention. The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96‑107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Remaining complaints
The applicant in application no. 60316/08 also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention and does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Period of detention
60316/08
08/09/2008
Bella Andreyevna Kochneva
07/01/1984
Nagornyy Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich
Kimry, Tver Region
28/05/2004 to
31/07/2006
16/01/2007 to
12/03/2008
11840/15
16/02/2015
Yevgeniy Viktorovich Bogomyagkov
24/10/1959
10/06/2014 to
19/02/2015
19897/16
13/07/2016
Eduard Aleksandrovich Shilintsev
26/01/1965
Dubonosova Anna Eduardovna
Velikiy Novgorod
19/10/2015
pending
53775/16
03/09/2016
Tatyana Nikolayevna Stepanova
05/01/1974
17/02/2016 to
31/05/2016
56996/16
16/09/2016
Elkhan Vekil Ogly Guseynov
05/04/1971
Losev Vyacheslav Konstantinovich
Syktykvar
21/04/2016 to
08/08/2016
67008/16
19/10/2016
Almaz Arslanovich Galeyev
17/04/1980
11/12/2013 to
23/03/2017
1194/17
22/12/2016
Dmitriy Sergeyevich Minenkov
01/10/1985
24/06/2016 to
17/01/2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy