THIRD SECTION

CASE OF NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 29715/11 and 27 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 June 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Namchyl-Ool and Others v. Russia ,

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

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

Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2021 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table .

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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 . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

6 . The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no. 27618/18 whereby they acknowledged that the applicant ’ s complaints against the detention orders of 31 December 2017, 14 February and 16 March 2018 had not been examined “speedily” as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 500 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay th at amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.

7 . The applicant rejected the Government ’ s proposal.

8 . The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC] , no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

9 . The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the review of lawfulness of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012).

10 . Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

11 . In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

12 . Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

13 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out application no. 27618/18 in the part concerning the review of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention .

14 . The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no. 3127/19 which was not accepted by the applicant. The Court notes that the unilateral declaration did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government ’ s request to strike that application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar , cited above, § 75).

15 . The applicant s complained principally 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.”

16 . 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, KudÅ‚a 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).

17 . 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.

18 . 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.

19 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

20 . Some applicants also raised complaints under other Convention provisions (see the appended table below) . These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, 122-139 , ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning confinement of a defendant in a metal cage during the trial and absence of effective remedies to complain thereof; Menesheva v. Russia , no. 59261/00, § § 85-89, ECHR 2006 ‑ III, concerning unrecorded detention; Idalov v. Russia , Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters ; Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007, as regards absence of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time ) .

21 . In some applications the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

23 . In application no. 7658/19 the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Having examined it, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of application no. 7658/19 must be dismissed in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

24 . 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.”

25 . 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.

26 . 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,

(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 10 June 2021 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

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

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]

29715/11

19/04/2011

Andrey Kara-Oolovich NAMCHYL-OOL

1967Konin Vladimir Vladimirovich

Kaliningrad

25/11/2009 to

19/07/2012

Kyzyl Town Court of the Tyva Republic, Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic

2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts ; the national courts extended the period of the applicant ’ s detention based on the same reasons throughout the whole period of his pre-trial detention

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was placed in a metal cage during the hearing on 25 November 2010 before the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic

9,750

35425/12

18/05/2012

Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich MELNIKOV

1970

12/03/2012 to

06/03/2013

Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg; Sverdlovsk Regional Court

11 month(s) and 23 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

1,000

41501/17

02/06/2017

Vladimir Viktorovich ZUBAREV

1977Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich

Voronezh

28/10/2016 to

06/09/2017

Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court

10 month(s) and 10 day(s)

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

1,000

48049/17

09/06/2017

Aleksandr Alekseyevich GAYDA

1988Pakin Konstantin Vladimirovich

Velikiy Novgorod

03/08/2016 to

09/08/2017

Soletskiy District Court of Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court

1 year(s) and 7 day(s)

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

1,100

54024/17

13/07/2017

Dmitriy Nikolayevich GAGARIN

1981Tsareva Yevgeniya Sergeyevna

Vladivostok

06/06/2013 to

05/02/2018

Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Ussuriyskiy District Courts of the Primorye Region Primorye Regional Court

4 year(s) and 8 month (s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention order s

4,800

78906/17

10/11/2017

Nikolay Nikolayevich YEFIMENKO

1989Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich

Astrakhan

07/07/2017 to

21/12/2017

Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court

5 month(s) and 15 day(s)

reliance exclusively on the seriousness of the charges;

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - complaint about unrecorded detention between 07/07/2017 and 08/07/2017 ( Menesheva v. Russia , no. 59261/00, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2006 III)

1,300

79765/17

24/10/2017

Marina Nikolayevna BOCHAROVA

1975

22/07/2010 to

29/05/2017

Vologda Regional Court

6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)

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

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention -the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial

6,500

83235/17

03/12/2017

Ruslan Yedresovich ORAZALIN

1988Dunayeva Alla Igorevna

Chelyabinsk

28/10/2016 to

25/12/2019

Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk , Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk , Chelyabinsk Regional Court

3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s)

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

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant was placed in a metal cage during hearings in Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk (trial court) from 28/11/2016 to 07/06/2017

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against decision of 11/09/2017 extending the period of pre-trial detention was examined on 26/10/2017

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect to the placement in metal cage during the trial

9,750

298/18

11/12/2017

Igor Borisovich NAGAVKIN

1980Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

28/09/2016 to

16/11/2018

Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court, Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s)

collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision of 19/06/2017 extending the period of the applicant ’ s detention was examined on 12/07/2017

2 ,700

2505/18

19/12/2017

Edvard Borisovich ZOLOTUKHIN

1962Timireva Olga Vladimirovna

Moscow

29/08/2017 to

14/06/2018

Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

9 month(s) and 17 day(s)

fragility of reasons employed by the domestic courts; the applicant was accused of a “white-collar” crime; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the detention order of 30/08/2017 examined on appeal on 9/10/2017

1,300

3143/18

27/12/2017

Sergey Sergeyevich PAKHOMOV

1985Kharlamova Anna Vyacheslavovna

Lipetsk

18/06/2015 to

06/03/2018

Levoberezhnyy District Court of Lipetsk, Lipetsk Regional Court

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)

a number of c collective detention orders, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

2 , 9 00

09/01/2018

Anastasiya Igorevna TEPLYGINA

/1990

Smishchenko Sergey Aleksandrovich

Moscow

26/04/2016 to

11/09/2017

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 17 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; the applicant was accused of an economic (“white collar”) crime

1,500

4802/18

19/12/2017

Aleksey Arkadyevich MALOBRODSKIY

1958Karpinskaya Kseniya Sergeyevna

Moscow

19/06/2017 to

25/04/2018

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

10 month(s) and 7 day(s)

collective detention orders (in part); fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal against the decision extending the period of the applicant ’ s detention of 18/07/2017 was examined on 06/09/2017

1,300

7222/18

10/01/2018

Aleksandr Yuryevich BATRIN

1977Korshunov Andrey Anatolyevich

Volgograd

23/09/2014 to 20/08/2018

Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court

3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

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

4 ,0 00

7349/18

19/01/2018

Aleksandr Vsevolodovich KIRBAY

1972Pakin Konstantin Vladimirovich

Velikiy Novgorod

08/08/2017 to

07 /0 8 /201 8

Novgorodskiy District Court of Novgorod, Novgorod Regional Court

1 year(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

1,000

8349/18

16/01/2018

Petr Anatolyevich YAKOVLEV

1987Shishkina Olga Yevgenyevna

Arkhangelsk

06/06/2016 to 09/02/2018

Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)

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

1,900

8828/18

06/02/2018

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich MAKAROV

1978Plekhanov Aleksandr Valeryevich

Volgograd

23/09/2014 to 20/08/2018

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court

3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)

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

4,000

27618/18

04/06/2018

Bekzod Ulugbek ugli MADZHITOV

1992Aliyev Eldar Ibragim ogly

St Petersburg

18/02/2016 to 05/07/2019

St Petersburg City Court

3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)

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 case progressed

500 under the Government ’ s unilateral declaration

and 3,500 in respect of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

46294/18

29/08/2018

Ion Nikolayevich PEREVOSHCHIKOV

1978

20/08/2014 to 19/09/2019

Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region; Noginsk Town Court; Moscow Regional Court

5 year(s) and 1 month(s)

collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

5,000

48417/18

05/10/2018

Oleg Aleksandrovich FEOKTISTOV

1983

05/04/2017

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than

3 year(s) and

11 month(s) and 22 day(s)

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; collective detention orders

4,000

50961/18

07/10/2018

Vladimir Yuryevich BORISOV

1959Redkin Dmitriy Andreyevich

Krasnoyarsk

09/04/2018

pending

Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 day(s)

use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

3,000

53000/18

01/11/2018

Aleksey Valeryevich SUSHKOV

1977Znamenshchikov Yevgeniy Vladimirovich

Lipetsk

31/08/2018

pending

Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court

More than

2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s)

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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

2,700

3127/19

20/12/2018

Pavel Vladimirovich LITVINTSEV

1988

08/07/2018 to

13/04/2019

Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk; Irkutsk Regional Court

9 month(s) and 6 day(s)

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during numerous hearings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk

9,750

6565/19

08/10/2018

Sergey Vladimirovich BRYLEV

1984

26/07/2016

pending

Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic

More than

4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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; as the case progressed

4,900

7658/19

21/01/2018

Vladislav Yuryevich PETRUSHENKO

1970Baryshnikov Ivan Aleksandrovich

Moscow

29/08/2018 to

28/01/2019

Khimki Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court

5 month(s)

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

500

8268/19

06/02/2019

Petr Ilyich ASTAFYEV

1999Kostyushev Vladimir Yuryevich

Moscow

13/07/2018 to

05 / 11 / 2019

Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30 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

8766/19

27/01/2019

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PRIMAKOV

1978

08/06/2015 to

21/11/2018

Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 14 day(s)

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; collective detention orders

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – the appeal against the decision extending the period of the applicant ’ s detention of 23/07/2018 was examined on appeal on 11/09/2018 .

4,100

9489/19

01/02/2019

Sergey Stepanovich DERZHIPILSKIY

1996

15/03/2017 to

06/02/2020

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s)

u se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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

3,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.