BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> BELKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 8344/12 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 285 (29 March 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/285.html Cite as: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0329JUD000834412, [2018] ECHR 285, CE:ECHR:2018:0329JUD000834412 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BELKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 8344/12 and 6 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 March 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Belkov 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,
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. In application no. 8344/12 the applicant submitted also a complaint under Article 5 § 4 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. In application no. 8344/12 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 5 § 4 which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of speediness in the review of the detention matters.IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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."
13. 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.14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications 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 29 March 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no. | Applicant name Date of birth
| Representative name and location | Period of detention Length of detention | Courts which issued detention orders/ examined appeals | Specific defects | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] | |
26/01/2012 | Oleg Viktorovich Belkov 31/03/1967 | Nasonov Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow | 12/05/2011 to 29/05/2013 2 year(s) and 18 day(s) | Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow; Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - collective detention orders. | Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 16/12/2011 examined on appeal on 01/02/2012; detention order of 31/01/2012 was examined by the appeal court on 12/03/2012 | 2,100 | |
11/03/2012 | Firdinat Khakimzyanovich Yusupov 30/08/1964 | Akmayev Artur Talgatovich Kazan | 06/07/2010 to 03/04/2013 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 29 day(s) | Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic | - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
|
| 2,900 | |
04/07/2016 | Damir Fazylzhanovich Sarmasin 06/12/1978 |
| 20/05/2015 to 06/07/2016
20/10/2016 to 03/04/2017
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s)
| Leninskiy District Court of Orsk; Orenburg Regional Court | - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - collective detention orders. |
| 1,800 | |
04/08/2016 | Erik Davidovich Kituashvili 08/07/1981 | Romashov Andrey Mikhaylovich Moscow | 21/02/2016 Pending. More than 1 year(s) and 11 month(s)
| Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. |
| 2,100 | |
28/07/2016 | Yuriy Ivanovich Cherneyev 07/05/1965 | Cherneyeva Tatyana Anatolyevna Donskoye | 27/02/2016 to 19/06/2017 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 24 day(s)
| Novoaleksandrovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court | - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint |
| 1,400 | |
06/09/2016 | Liliya Aleksandrovna Marinicheva 14/10/1970 | Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich Samara | 04/06/2014 Pending. More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s)
| Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the Samara Region; Samara Regional Court | - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. |
| 3,800 | |
17/10/2016 | Ufuk Shıre 09/08/1976 | Kandin Vasiliy Vasilyevich Moscow | 07/12/2015 to 25/10/2017 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)
| Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court | - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; - failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. |
| 2,100 |
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
