THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 69168/17 Vladimir Viktorovich SOKOLOV against Russia and 14 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President, Dmitry Dedov, Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in some applications and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in application no. 79579/17,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 4638/19, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under another provision of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“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.”

As regards application no. 3105/18, the Court observes that the applicant’s pre-trial detention comprised two distinct periods: (1) from 12 August 2003, when the applicant was arrested pending criminal investigation against him, to 29 September 2005, when he was convicted by the trial court at first level of jurisdiction, and (2) from 20 December 2016, when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the applicant’s conviction in view of newly discovered facts, to his conviction on 8 September 2018 by the trial court at the first level of jurisdiction. In between those two periods the applicant’s first conviction became final, when upheld by the appellate court on 5 June 2006, and the applicant, for approximately ten years, served a prison sentence.

The Court considers that, similarly to the situation in the case of Idalov v. Russia ([GC], no. 5826/03, § § 127-33, 22 May 2012) the six-month rule should be applied, separately, to each period of pre-trial detention. Accordingly, the Court cannot consider whether or not the first period was compatible with the Convention. The applicant’s complaint in the part concerning the period of pre-trial detention from 12 August 2003 to 29 September 2005 should be declared inadmissible as being lodged out of time.

As to the complaint in the part concerning the second period of pre-trial detention from 20 December 2016 to 8 September 2018 (application no. 3105/18) and the remaining Article 5 § 3 complaints in other applications, 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 applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of pre-trial detention are inadmissible. The Court notes that while extending the applicants’ detention the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated and/or violent offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the complexity of the criminal cases against the applicants and the existence of a serious risk of their absconding or interfering with justice, confirmed, inter alia , by the pattern of their behaviour, organised nature of the crimes, extensive connection to the criminal underworld and/or substantial financial resources and previous documented attempts to intimidate witnesses or victims. The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicants were liable to obstruct justice, to re-offend or abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures to those applicants but found them to be inadequate. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ continued detention. The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia , no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia , no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia , no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia , no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).

In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

As regards the complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention lodged by Ms Trukhina (application no. 4638/19), the Court reiterates that the right to compensation under the said Article arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria , no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çağdaş Şahin v. Turkey , no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).

In the instant case neither the Court nor the domestic courts acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights set out in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, in the absence of such acknowledgment, Article 5 § 5 is not applicable to the present case.

It follows that this part of application no. 4638/19 is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli 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’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Period of detention

Court which issued detention order / examined appeal

Length of detention

Alleged defects

Other complaints

69168/17

09/09/2017

Vladimir Viktorovich SOKOLOV

1963Gudkov Denis Yuryevich

Samara

12/02/2016 to

09/10/2017

Kirovskiy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court

1 year(s) and

7 month(s) and

28 day(s)

excessive length of detention pending trial

72579/17

02/10/2017

Aleksandra Vladimirovna POGORELOVA

1986Gribov Lev Georgiyevich

St Petersburg

04/04/2016 to 09/06/2016

02/03/2017 to

05/03/2018

Nevskiy District Court of

St Petersburg,

St Petersburg City Court

2 month(s) and

6 day(s)

1 year(s) and

4 day(s)

excessive length of detention pending trial

73689/17

01/10/2017

Artur Andranikovich AKOBDZHANYAN

1982

07/04/2017 to

06/04/2018

Promyshlennyy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court

1 year

excessive length of detention pending trial

3105/18

20/12/2017

Igor Viktorovich RYABOKON (KRAFT)

1970Yablokov Anatoliy Yuryevich

Moscow

12/08/2003 to

29/09/2005

20/12/2016 to

08/09/2018

Smolensk Regional Court,

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

2 year(s) and

1 month(s) and

18 day(s)

1 year(s) and

8 month(s) and

20 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding

7543/18

23/01/2018

Andrey Gennadyevich SUSARIN

1981

08/02/2016 to

07/05/2018

Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan and Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and

3 month(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

9809/18

11/02/2018

Yevgeniy Yuryevich GUBAREV

1985

28/10/2015 to 07/09/2020

Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow, Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow and Moscow City Court

4 year(s) and

10 month(s) and

11 day(s)

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

11314/18

04/02/2018

Aleksey Grigoryevich PLEKHANOV

1975

01/06/2016 to 28/09/2018

Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan and Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan / Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

28 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

21175/18

31/08/2018

Igor Olegovich VASILYEV

1989

19/08/2015 to

06/09/2018

Novgorod Regional Court; Starorusskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region; Pskov Regional Court

3 year(s) and

19 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

45860/18

13/09/2018

Galina Yevgenyevna ANISIMOVA

1974Dolgoborodova Galina Nikolayevna

St Petersburg

28/09/2017 to

14/12/2018

Primorskiy District Court of

St Petersburg;

St Petersburg City Court

1 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

17 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

50669/18

08/10/2018

Aleksey Sergeyevich PTASHINSKIY

1990

15/03/2018 to

28/05/2019

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

14 day(s)

use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

56626/18

16/11/2018

Dmitriy Mikhaylovich SUKHANOV

1975Mitrokhina Yuliya Vyacheslavovna

Novosibirsk

12/05/2018 to

13/03/2019

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court

10 month(s) and

2 day(s)

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

57458/18

03/12/2018

Andrey Viktorovich VEDERNIKOV

1975Belova Yekaterina Borisovna

Moscow

31/05/2018 to

20/07/2018

Boksitogorskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region; Leningrad Regional Court

1 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

4638/19

11/12/2018

Oksana Yevgenyevna TRUKHINA

1977

23/05/2018 to

19/10/2018

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

4 month(s) and

27 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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;

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - Absence of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

12630/19

04/02/2019

Vasiliy Vasilyevich NAVRAZHNYKH

1976Sharin Sergey Valeryevich

Arkhangelsk

13/07/2017 to

18/12/2018

Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk; Arkhangelsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

6 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

23916/19

01/04/2019

Artem Sergeyevich ZOLOTUKHIN

1991

06/11/2016 to

04/12/2019

Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

3 year(s) and

29 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint