THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13065/21
Mikhail Gennadyevich VASILYEV
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 5 April 2021,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and lengthy review of detention matters were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention)The applicant complained that there had been no sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention between 4 May 2020 to 5 July 2021. 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.
The Court notes that, when deciding on the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in several thefts and the gravity of charges, risks of absconding and reoffending. The courts also considered the possibility of applying alternative measures of restraint and the applicant’s personality. In particular, they stated that he was not registered at his place of residence and had committed crimes while serving a non-custodial sentence. The Court is prepared to accept that the seriousness of the alleged crimes and the applicant’s conduct could reasonably constitute sufficient factual grounds justifying his pre-trial detention for one year and two months (see Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 95-110, 10 January 2012, and Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, §§ 95-113, 27 November 2014).
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.
Remaining complaintThe applicant also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the lack of speedy review of the detention matters (for further details see the appended table).
The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. In particular, the material before it shows that the applicant had significantly contributed each time to the length of the judicial proceedings, having lodged numerous amendments to his appeals, having delayed an appeal against the detention order, having lodged complaints on other unrelated matters which called for the adjournment of the appeal proceedings, having failed to participate in court hearings or having taken additional time to study the case-file materials.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order/
examined appeal
Length of detention
Other Inadmissible Complaints
13065/21
05/04/2021
Mikhail Gennadyevich VASILYEV
1983
04/05/2020 to
05/07/2021
Zelenogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 2 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
First Instance court and date of detention order:
1) Zelenogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 23/07/2020
2) Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 03/09/2020
3) Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 29/10/2020
4) Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 29/12/2020
Appeal instance court and date of decision
1) Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 20/10/2020
2) Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/10/2020
3) Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 12/01/2021
4) Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021
Procedural deficiencies:
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)