[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SOBOLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 45057/06 (Judgment : Right to liberty and security (Length of pre-trial detention)) [2017] ECHR 985 (09 November 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/985.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2017:1109JUD004505706, [2017] ECHR 985, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1109JUD004505706

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SOBOLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applicatiosn nos. 45057/06 and 6 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

9 November 2017

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Sobolev and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 October 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They 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.”

7.  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).

8.  In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia (nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 49-53, 16 February 2017, regarding absence of an effective opportunity for detainees to attend hearings in their civil cases) and Yudayev v. Russia (no. 40258/03, § 81, 15 January 2009, concerning a lack of procedural guarantees during the examination of the detention matter in view of the applicant’s and/or his lawyer’s absence from the proceedings).

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In applications nos. 45057/06 and 9663/10, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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 nos. 45057/06 and 9663/10 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

16.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 45057/06 and 9663/10 inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;

 

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

 

5.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra

Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Period of detention	Length of detention	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	45057/06 15/06/2006	Sergey Aleksandrovich Sobolev 11/02/1960		19/04/2006 to 18/08/2006	4 month(s)	Art. 5 (4) lack of procedural guarantees during the examination of a detention matter - neither the applicant nor his defence lawyer were present at the appeal hearing of 10/05/2006 held by the Krasnodar Regional Court concerning the applicant’s detention	1,300
2.	9663/10 11/01/2010	Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich Zakharov 18/06/1977		21/07/2007 to 15/06/2010	2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)		3,100
3.	15191/10 11/02/2010	Aleksandr Aleksadnrovich Melnikov 01/01/1974		30/09/2009 to 05/04/2010	6 month(s) and 7 day(s)		1,000
4.	72052/11 24/10/2011	Eres Saryg-Oolovich Badynam 18/12/1980		13/03/2011 to 14/06/2012	1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)	Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - first-instance court hearings, in which the applicant was absent despite of his request to appear - Kyzyl Town Court of the Tyva Republic - 27/07/2011; Appeal hearings - the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic - 06/12/2011	1,800
5.	43052/16 11/07/2016	Andrey Gennadyevich Krasnov 24/05/1979		11/04/2016 to 28/12/2016	8 month(s) and 18 day(s)		1,000
6.	56799/16 21/09/2016	Artem Dmitriyevich Mamotko 29/03/1984	Kondratyev Aleksey Borisovich Moscow	18/01/2013 pending	More than 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 11 days		4,900
7.	63096/16 21/10/2016	Radik Nailevich Khamidullin 29/01/1985		12/10/2013 to 30/06/2015     10/02/2016 pending	1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 19 day(s)   More than 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 19 day(s)		3,500

 

 




---

[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.