THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 28342/10 Aleksey Sergeyevich PUGIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:

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

and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 April 2010,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 January 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Sergeyevich Pugin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and is detained in Angarsk.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long and that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons.

On 29 August 2014 the application was communicated to the Government.

FACTS

The applicant was born in 1986 and lived, prior to his arrest in Angarsk, Irkutsk Region.

On 29 January 2010 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery.

On 3 February 2010 the Angarsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region remanded him in custody stating that he was charged with a serious violent crime committed during working hours in a public place, that the perpetrators including the applicant had used weapons, that his accomplices had not been found, that the applicant had no family, job or stable income; thus he could abscond, conspire to commit crimes, destroy evidence or interfere with the investigation.

On 16 February 2010 he was released.

On 27 February 2010 he was remanded in custody again on the grounds described above. He remained in pre-trial detention pending investigation and trial until 13 April 2012. The courts based their detention orders on stereotyped formula described above. The appeal court rejected the applicant ’ s appeals against the detention orders.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been excessively long and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Article 5 § 3, in so far as relevant, provides 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.”

The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the pre-trial detention period ending on 16 February 2010. They acknowledged that the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention between 27 February 2010 to 13 April 2012 had been incompatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and proposed to make a unilateral declaration. They further asked the Court to strike out this part of the application, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

In the declaration, the Government acknowledged that the applicant had been detained “without well-founded justification on the basis of decisions rendered by the courts”, which did “not comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention” and stated their readiness to pay 2,500 euros to the applicant for his pre-trial detention form 27 February 2010 to 13 April 2012.

The remainder of the declaration read as follows:

“The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The applicant was invited to comment on the Government ’ s unilateral declaration, if he so wished. He submitted no comments in reply .

A. Pre-trial detention between 29 January and 16 February 2010

The Court observes that in the present case the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention comprised two distinct periods: (1) from 29 January 2010, when the applicant was arrested, to 16 February 2010, when he was released, and (2) from 27 February 2010, when he was rearrested, to 13 April 2012 .

The Court accepts the Government ’ s argument that the applicant did not appeal against the court order authorising his detention from 29 January to 16 February 2010. It considers, accordingly, that the applicant ’ s complaint concerning his detention between 29 January and 16 February 2010 must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies .

B. Pre-trial detention between 27 February 2010 and 13 April 2012

As regards the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention between 27 February 2010 and 13 April 2012, the Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention enables the Court to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Russia (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, §§ 104- 21 ECHR 2002 VI), it h as found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of an excessively lengthy pre ‑ trial detention without proper justification in more than a hundred cases against that State (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 200, 10 January 2012). It follows that the complaint raised in the present application is based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.

Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicant and explicitly acknowledged that their pre-trial detention had been in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicant, the Government have undertaken to pay him certain amount of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of this sum within three months of the Court ’ s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.

The Court is satisfied that the amount of compensation proposed is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Yuriy Yakovlev v. Russia , no. 5453/08 , § 95, 29 April 2010; Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia , no. 41716/08, § 67, 29 May 2012; and Kislitsa v. Russia , no. 29985/05, § 49, 19 June 2012).

The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case. The Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine ) does not require it to continue the examination of the case. In any event, the Court ’ s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the application to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006, and Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike that part of the application concerning the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention between 27 February 2010 and 13 April 2012 out of its list of cases in accordance with Artic le 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Helena Jäderblom              Deputy Registrar President