THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55781/17
Aleksandr Sergeyevich POSOKHIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2017,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Sergeyevich Posokhin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in St Petersburg.
2. On 19 May 2011 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody pending criminal proceedings against him. He remained in detention pending investigation and trial.
3. On 7 May 2014 the applicant lodged an application with the Court and on 3 September 2014 his complaint about allegedly excessive length of his pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government (application no. 18426/14).
4. On 29 May 2017 the District Court convicted the applicant. Neither the Government nor the applicant informed the Court of those developments in the case.
5. On 6 July 2017 the Court examined the applicant’s case (application no. 18426/14) and found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of pre-trial detention. The Court’s reasoning was based on the assumption that, as of the relevant date, the applicant remained in detention and his case was pending before the trial court (see Memetov and Others v. Russia, nos. 9070/14 and 7 others, 6 July 2017).
6. On 10 July 2017 the applicant submitted the present application with the Court without explicitly mentioning his conviction. The Government was given notice of the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on 21 September 2017. On 10 October 2017 the applicant was informed accordingly.
7. On 5 March 2018 the Court received a letter from the applicant, dated 6 February 2018, whereby he informed the Court of his conviction on 29 May 2017 and release on 30 January 2018.
THE LAW
8. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.
9. The Court observes at the outset that the applicant failed to inform the Court in due time about his conviction on 29 May 2017. While the Government did not argue that such failure on the part of the applicant amounted to an abuse of the right of individual petition, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it necessary to examine this issue proprio motu (see Shalyavski and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 67608/11, § 43, 15 June 2017, and Gevorgyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 66535/10, § 32, 14 January 2020).
10. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, among other authorities, Jian v. Romania, (dec.), no. 46640/99, 30 March 2004, and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, ECHR 2006-V) or if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006, and Basileo v. Italy (dec.), no. 11303/02, 23 August 2011). Similarly, an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of application if applicants – despite their obligation under Rule 47 § 7 (former Rule 47 § 6) of the Rules of Court – fail to inform the Court of important new developments regarding their pending applications, given that such conduct prevents the Court from ruling on the matter in full knowledge of the facts (see Bekauri v. Georgia, (dec.) no. 14102/02, §§ 21-23, 10 April 2012).
11. The notion of abuse of the right of application is not limited to these scenarios. In general terms, any conduct on the part of an applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and that impedes the proper functioning of the Court, or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, constitutes an abuse of the right of application (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, §§ 62 and 65, 15 September 2009).
12. The Court also reiterates that its task is not to deal with manifestly improper conduct on the part of applicants or their authorised representatives which creates unnecessary work for the Court, that is incompatible with its proper functions under the Convention (see Petrović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 56551/11 and 10 other applications, 18 October 2011, and Bekauri, cited above, § 21; De Cristofaro and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30464/07 and others, § 45, 10 July 2012, Martins Alves v. Portugal (dec.), no. 56297/11, §§ 8-17, 21 January 2014).
13. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was convicted by the trial court on 29 May 2017. His pre-trial detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention ended on that date (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI, and Parfenov and Barabash v. Russia (dec.), nos. 16284/18 and 16288/18, 2 July 2019).
14. However, the applicant failed to inform the Court about this fact when lodging the present application. As a result, the Court communicated the present application under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention based on untrue information that the applicant’s detention was still pending (see paragraph 6 above). The relevant information only reached the Court on 5 March 2018. The applicant did not provide any explanation for such a delay.
15. Against this background, the Court finds sufficient elements to establish that the applicant, by his failure to comply with his duty under Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of the Court, intentionally prevented the Court form having a full knowledge of the facts of the case which were the very core of the subject matter of the present application.
16. Regard being had to the above, the Court considers that the applicant’s conduct in the present case was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention and that the application must therefore be rejected as an abuse thereof, pursuant to 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 2 December 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President