THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31321/20
Dmitriy Nikolayevich LEVINSKIY
against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2020,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Mr I.V. Storozhenko, a lawyer practising in Perm.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The applicant complained that there had been no sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention between 16 December 2019 and 1 December 2020. He 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.”
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).
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention is inadmissible.
When deciding on the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the crime. The courts took into account that the applicant was the director of a State-owned institution and adequately assessed the risk of him influencing other participants in the criminal proceedings and the risk of witness tampering. The courts also referred to the gravity of charges, the applicant’s potential to abscond or interfere with investigation, his financial resources, the absence of permanent residence and his ability to hide or destroy evidence. Finally, the courts considered a possibility of applying alternative measures of restraint and found them insufficient to decrease the serious risks of the applicant absconding or obstructing justice. The Court is prepared to accept that the above elements could reasonably constitute sufficient factual grounds justifying the applicant’s pre-trial detention for about a year (see Sergey Denisov v. Russia, no. 21566/13, §§ 67-82, 8 October2015, and Roman Petrov v. Russia, no. 37311/08, §§ 47-58, 15 December 2015).
In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
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
31321/20
21/07/2020
Dmitriy Nikolayevich LEVINSKIY
1970
Igor Vasilyevich Storozhenko
Perm
16/12/2019 to
01/12/2020
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm; Perm Regional Court
11 month(s) and
16 day(s)