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 >> TSEBOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 32041/17 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 505 (27 June 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2019/505.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2019:0627JUD003204117, [2019] ECHR 505, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0627JUD003204117 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TSEBOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application s no s . 32041/17and 7 others -
see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tseboyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena
Poláčková
,
President,
Dmitry
Dedov
,
Gilberto
Felici
,
judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt
,
Acting
Deputy Section Registrar
,
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant s complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention .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 applicant s complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long . They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read s 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 applicant s ' pre-trial detention was excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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."
12. 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. 13. 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
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , 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 27 June 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt
Alena
Poláčková
Acting
Deputy
Registrar
President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
( excessive length of pre-trial detention )
|
Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant ' s name Date of birth
|
Representative ' s name and location |
Period of detention |
Court which issued detention order/examined appeal |
Length of detention |
Specific defects |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i] | |
|
|
06/04/2017 |
Alan Vladislavovich Tseboyev 26/09/1976 |
|
01/03/2012 pending |
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic |
More than 7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 day(s)
|
collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant ' s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed |
9,400 |
|
|
18/07/2017 |
Ruzil Rimovich Davletshin 02/09/1988 |
|
15/10/2014 to 08/12/2017 |
Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit |
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 24 day(s)
|
collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant ' s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
|
4,200 |
|
|
30/11/2017 |
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Rashchupkin 06/01/1978 |
|
06/12/2012 to 27/12/2017 |
Korolyev Town Court; Moscow Regional Court |
5 year(s) and 22 day(s)
|
collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant ' s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed |
6,600 |
|
|
27/11/2017 |
Leonid Vladimirovich Lobkov 30/03/1961 |
|
28/11/2016 to 09/04/2018 |
Syktyvkar Town Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic |
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 13 day(s)
|
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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; |
2,000 |
|
|
03/01/2018 |
Yekaterina Vladimirovna Fedorova 11/10/1972 |
|
03/08/2016 pending |
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court |
More than 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 2 day(s)
|
collective detention orders; 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, colluding or absconding as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; |
3,800 |
|
|
03/01/2018 |
Mikhail Vladimirovich Maslov 16/08/1978 |
|
08/07/2015 pending |
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court |
More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 28 day(s)
|
collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant ' s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; |
5,100 |
|
|
24/04/2018 |
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich Prishibskiy 21/11/1991 |
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow |
19/11/2017 to 09/07/2018 |
Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk; Orenburg Regional Court |
7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
|
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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; |
1,300 |
|
|
21/04/2018 |
Magomed Ortsovich Batazhev 22/06/1981 |
Geroyev Akhmed Daudovich Moscow |
30/03/2016 pending |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Presnenskyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court |
More than 3 year(s) and 6 day(s)
|
collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; |
4,000 |
[i] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
