Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

YEFIMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 76650/13;13875/14;13879/14;51213/14 • ECHR ID: 001-169841

Document date: November 17, 2016

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 1

YEFIMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 76650/13;13875/14;13879/14;51213/14 • ECHR ID: 001-169841

Document date: November 17, 2016

Cited paragraphs only

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 76650/13 Andrey Borisovich YEFIMENKO against Russia and 3 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 November 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom , President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda , judges,

and Hasan Bakırcı, 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,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application s are 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”) .

THE LAW

A. Joinder of the applications

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

B. Complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention ( excessive length of pre-trial detention )

In the present application s , having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the alleged violations of the Convention.

In particular, in application no. 76650/13 the latest detention order in the applicant ’ s criminal proceedings in respect of which he brought an appeal was the decision of the Iskitimskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region dated 20 February 2013. The applicant ’ s appeal was rejected by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on 18 March 2013. The application was lodged with the Court on 25 October 2013, which is more than six months later. It follows that the case should be rejected as having been lodged out of time, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

The Court notes that in application no. 13875/14 the applicant ’ s detention order of the Gornomariyskiy District Court of the Republic of Mary El dated 14 May was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mary El on 23 May 2013. The case was lodged with the Court on 23 December 2013, which is more than six months later. It follows that the case should be rejected as having been lodged out of time, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

In application no. 13879/14 the applicant ’ s detention order dated 9 November 2012 was upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 15 November 2012, whereas the case was lodged with the Court on 31 January 2014, which is more than six months later. It follows that this case should be rejected as having been lodged out of time, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

In application no. 51213/14, the Court notes that the applicant ’ s detention on remand lasted slightly over two months, from 22 January to 24 March 2014, following which the applicant was released. Given the motivation for the relatively short duration of the arrest, namely the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant ’ s involvement in an aggravated crime committed in an organised group and the statements of the victims heard in court regarding the threats received in the course of the proceedings, it cannot be said that the domestic courts had failed duly to consider all the relevant factors, that they did not give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicant ’ s continued detention, or that they failed to display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Topekhin v. Russia , no. 78774/13 , §§ 102-110, 10 May 2016). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant ’ s complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the application s inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 December 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

Period of detention

Length of detention

76650/13

25/10/2013

Andrey Borisovich YEFIMENKO

03/02/1983

01/11/2012

pending

More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)

13875/14

23/12/2013

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ARKHIPOV

02/07/1969

12/05/2013

pending

More than 3 year(s) and

4 month(s) and 10 day(s)

13879/14

31/01/2014

Nikolay Ilyich SADOVYY

01/02/1958

Skibin Vladimir Aleksandrovich

Krasnodar

28/11/2011 to

12/07/2013

1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s)

51213/14

28/06/2014

Kseniya Aleksandrovna SBORNOVA

13/05/1987

Batyants Samvel Sergeyevich

Nizhniy Novgorod

22/01/2014 to

24/03/2014

2 month(s) and 3 day(s)

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846