Communicated on 8 March 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no 54549/08
Vitaliy Stepanovich ZBORSHCHIK against Russia
and 3 other applications
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 54549/08 was lodged on 20 October 2008 by Mr Vitaliy Stepanovich Zborshchik, who was born on 9 December 1970 and lives in St Petersburg. He is represented by Mr K.S. Kuzminykh, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
On 13 September 2006 the applicant was arrested. On 14 September 2006 the Tsentralnyy District Court of St Petersburg, authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 26 December 2007 the applicant began studying the case file. By 13 March 2008 he spent eighteen months in pre-trial detention.
On 10 April 2008 the St Petersburg City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 11 June 2008 (twenty-one months in total). The City Court referred to the need for the applicant to complete studying the case file. The City Court also relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, his lack of a permanent residence and the risk of his absconding and reoffending. On 16 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension on appeal.
On 9 June 2008 the City Court further extended the applicant’s detention for another two months so that he could finish studying the case file. The City Court also referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, his lack of permanent residence or lawful income, his possession of a foreign residence permit and the risk of his absconding and reoffending. On 28 July 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the extension on appeal.
On 7 August 2008 the City Court extended the applicant’s detention for another two months for the same purpose and on the same grounds. On an unspecified date the Supreme Court upheld the extension on appeal.
On 30 September 2008 the case was sent for trial. At the preliminary hearing of 10 October 2008 the City Court allowed the applicant’s detention pending trial for six months (thirty months in total). On 8 December 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the decision on appeal.
On 12 November 2008 the City Court sent the case to the prosecuting authorities to remedy certain procedural defects of the investigation affecting the applicant’s co-defendants. It ordered that the applicant should remain in custody. On 14 January 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decision on appeal.
On 9 February 2009 the City Court extended the applicant’s detention for another month. The City Court relied on the prosecutor’s need to remedy certain procedural defects of the investigation. It found no reasons to release the applicant in view of his character and the seriousness of the charges against him. On 30 March 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decision on appeal.
On an unspecified date the applicant restarted studying the case file.
On 6 March 2009 the City Court extended the applicant’s detention for another two months until 8 May 2009 to ensure that he completed studying the case file. The City Court relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his obstructing the investigation and absconding. On 13 April 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decision on appeal.
On 15 April 2009 the case was sent for trial. At the preliminary hearing on 4 May 2009 the City Court refused to release the applicant pending his trial.
On 26 August 2009 the City Court convicted and sentenced the applicant. On 3 December 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
2. Application no. 67967/13 was lodged on 7 October 2013 by Mr Khaled Khalaf, who was born on 1 January 1962 and lives in St Petersburg.
On 20 May 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having caused grievous bodily harm. On the same day the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised the applicant’s detention. His detention was further extended on several occasions. On 13 August 2012 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 November 2012, or up to the maximum detention period of eighteen months. On 23 August 2012 the investigation of the offence was completed and on 19 September 2012 the applicant began studying the twenty-nine-volume case file.
On 15 November 2012 a single judge of the St Petersburg City Court extended the applicant’s detention for another three months until 18 February 2013. The City Court referred to the seriousness of the charges, the risk of his absconding and the need to ensure the applicant’s right to study the case file. On 26 December 2012 a three-judge panel of the St Petersburg City Court upheld the extension on appeal.
On 31 January 2013 the applicant was additionally charged with having attempted to obstruct the initial investigation. On 2 April 2013 the investigation into the alleged grievous bodily harm was re-opened. On 3 April 2013 the two cases were joined and on 8 April 2013 the applicant was officially charged with both offences. On 10 April 2013 the investigation was completed and on 15 April 2013 the applicant restarted studying the case file.
On 13 February 2013 a single judge of the St Petersburg City Court extended the applicant’s detention for another three months until 21 May 2013 to ensure his studying of the case file. The judge referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding or obstructing the investigation. On 30 April 2013 a three-judge panel of the St Petersburg City Court upheld the extension on appeal.
On 20 May 2013 a single judge of the St Petersburg City Court extended the applicant’s detention for another three months until 21 August 2013. The judge relied on the same purpose and grounds as the original detention extension. On 8 July 2013 a panel of three judges of the St Petersburg City Court upheld the extension on appeal.
On an unspecified date the applicant’s case was sent for trial. On 14 May 2014 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court sent the applicant’s case to the prosecuting authorities to remedy certain procedural defects in the investigation. It also extended the applicant’s detention for another three months until 27 August 2014. On 25 August 2014 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of 14 May 2014 on appeal. The City Court also extended the applicant’s detention until 11 October 2014.
3. Application no. 79049/13 was lodged on 26 November 2013 by Mr Sergey Viktorovich Makhin, who was born on 20 February 1981 and lives in Krasnoznamensk, Moscow Region.
On 22 March 2011 the applicant was arrested. On 24 March 2011 the Mytishchinskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region authorised his detention.
On 22 August 2012 the applicant began studying the case file. In September 2012 his detention reached the maximum eighteen-month detention period.
On 10 January 2013 the applicant’s case was sent for trial. On 28 January 2013 the Moscow Regional Court sent the case to the prosecuting authorities to remedy certain procedural defects of the investigation. On 17 May 2013 the applicant restarted studying the case file.
On 22 May 2013 a single judge of the Moscow Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 2 September 2013 (twenty-six months in total). The judge relied on the applicant’s need to study the case file and the seriousness of the charges against him. The judge also considered that the applicant, a former policeman, could abscond, reoffend or obstruct the investigation. On 9 July 2013 a three-judge panel of the Moscow Regional Court upheld the extension on appeal.
The Moscow Regional Court further extended the applicant’s detention on the following dates: 30 August 2013 (upheld on appeal on 3 October 2013), 29 November 2013 (upheld on appeal on 26 December 2013), 27 February 2014 (upheld on appeal on 1 April 2014), 2 June 2014 (upheld on appeal on 3 July 2014), 1 August 2014 (upheld on appeal on 28 August 2014) and 29 October 2014 (upheld on appeal on 25 November 2014).
The above extension orders were issued to ensure the applicant could study the case file. All the decisions referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the risk of his absconding, reoffending and obstructing the investigation.
On an unspecified date the case was sent for trial. On 2 February 2015 the Moscow Regional Court sent the case to the prosecuting authorities to rectify certain defects of the indictment bill. The Moscow Regional Court also extended the applicant’s detention for another three months until 2 May 2015. It relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding, reoffending and obstructing the investigation. On 7 April 2015 a panel of three judges of the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 February 2015. On 28 April 2015 the applicant restarted studying the case file.
On 29 April 2015 a single judge of the Moscow Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 May 2015 to ensure that he completed studying the case file. The judge referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding and obstructing the investigation. On 25 June 2015 a panel of three judges of the Moscow Regional Court upheld the extension on appeal.
On 19 May 2015 a single judge of the Moscow Regional Court granted a further detention extension until 9 September 2015 to allow the applicant to study the case file. The judge found no reasons to release him. On 9 June 2015 a panel of three judges upheld the extension on appeal.
4. Application no. 8108/15 was lodged on 26 January 2015 by Mr Ilshat Midkhatovich Ivanov, who was born on 17 January 1970 and lives in Ulan‑Ude, the Republic of Buryatiya. He is represented by Mr O.A. Dymchikov, a lawyer practising in Ulan-Ude.
On 14 September 2012 the applicant was arrested on the suspicion of extortion. On 15 September 2012 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Ulan-Ude authorised his detention. On 9 November 2012, 19 December 2012 and 25 February 2013 the applicant’s detention was extended.
On 14 December 2012 an investigation into the applicant’s alleged drug possession was opened. On 5 March 2013 a third investigation into the applicant’s suspected robbery was initiated.
On 12 March 2013 the District Court ordered that the applicant be placed under house arrest instead of being held in custody. On 16 March 2013 the applicant was released from detention and placed under house arrest.
On an unspecified date the three investigations were joined. On 22 March 2013 the applicant was charged with extortion, drug dealing and robbery. On 23 April 2013 the applicant’s house arrest was extended. On 8 May 2013 the applicant began studying the case file.
On 23 May, 25 June, 22 July, 9 September and 26 December 2013 and 27 March 2014 the courts extended the applicant’s house arrest so that he could complete studying the case file.
On 14 March 2014 the period of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty reached the maximum period of eighteen months.
On 15 May 2014 the District Court set a fourteen-day time-limit for the applicant to complete studying of the case file. On 30 May 2014 the investigator held that the applicant had failed to comply with the deadline and ordered him to stop studying the case file.
On 3 June 2014 the applicant left his house to receive medical treatment in Novosibirsk. On the same day he was placed on the wanted list. On 21 June 2014 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk ordered that the applicant be detained for having breached the conditions of his house arrest.
On 27 June 2014 the Novosibirsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for another four months (twenty-four months in total). The Regional Court referred to the need for the applicant’s co-defendants to complete studying the case file. It relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, his breach of the house arrest and threats to a victim.
On 26 September 2014 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia extended the applicant’s detention for another three months. The Supreme Court relied on the grounds indicated in the detention order of 27 June 2014. On 8 October 2014 the extension was upheld on appeal.
On 6 November 2014 the case was sent for trial. On 28 November 2014 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Ulan-Ude extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for six months.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 33-44, 3 March 2011.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention of their unlawful detention in excess of the maximum eighteen-month detention period.
2. The applicants also complain, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that they did not have a trial within a reasonable time and that their detention lacked relevant and sufficient grounds.
QUESTIONS
1. Was the applicants’ detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention after the following dates:
– application no. 54549/08 – 12 June 2008;
– application no. 67967/13 – 18 February 2013;
– application no. 79049/13 – 2 September 2013; and
– application no. 8108/15 – 27 June 2014.
In particular, was their detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, having regard to the fact that the maximum eighteen-month period had expired and that their detention had already been extended once on the grounds that they needed to study the case file (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 51 and 71, 8 June 2006, and Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 61-62, 3 March 2011)?
2. Was the length of the applicants’ detention on remand in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy