THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 4688/19 and 8 others – see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

29 April 2021

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

In the case of Sokolov 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 8 April 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 of them also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention (see the appended table).

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 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, 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).

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.

11 . In applications nos. 4688/19 and 13041/19, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this regard, and related to the lack of a speedy review of detention matters) .

12 . In applications nos. 58834/19, 62758/19 and 64244/19, the applicants also complained that the review of detention matters in their respective cases had not been compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

13 . The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and 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 the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

14 . 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.”

15 . 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.

16 . 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 29 April 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]

4688/19

02/10/2019

Sergey Ivanovich SOKOLOV

1985

15/02/2018 to

05/02/2020

Berezovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 22 day(s)

U se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint .

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court of 21/08/2019, appeal decision of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court of 17/09/2019 (25 days) .

2,500

13041/19

16/07/2019

Nikolay Fedorovich ILYINSKIY

1990

24/11/2017 to

01/04/2019

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 day(s)

F ailure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention .

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport ;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport since 30/11/2017 on numerous occasions between detention facilities and the courthouse; no/ restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, no/ restricted access to toilet.

2,500

41276/19

27/09/2019

Aleksey Vladimirovich NEPOMNYASHCHIKH

1994

19/02/2018 to

02/12/2019

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 14 day(s)

F ragility 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;

reliance predominantly on the seriousness of the charges and complexity of the case.

2,000

57827/19

28/10/2019

Nasrulla Bagautdinovich MAGOMEDOV

1992Rokotyanskaya Tatyana Ivanovna

Volgograd

24/04/2019

pending

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

More than

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 16 day(s)

F ragility 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, 1 0 0

58834/19

22/10/2019

Magomed-Salyakh Lechiyevich

BIGAYEV

1971Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich

Moscow

28/03/2019 to

02/02/2021

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

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

F ragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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 .

2,000

58873/19

31/10/2019

Vladimir Sergeyevich CHERNIKOV

1982Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich

Voronezh

10/09/2018

pending

Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh; Voronezh Regional Court

More than

2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)

F ragility 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 .

2, 7 00

59226/19

22/10/2019

Ayzat Rafikovich KALIMULLIN

1974

25/10/2016 to

02/12/2019

Naberezhnyy Chelny Town Court; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

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

F ailure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention .

3,200

62758/19

21/11/2019

Andrey Pavlovich BELENIN

1980Dvornikov Anton Nikolayevich

Moscow

31/01/2019 to

14/10/2020

Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow

1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 day(s)

F ragility 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 .

1 ,900

64244/19

25/11/2019

Gera Yuryevna GUZHVA

1995Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

27/11/2017 to

03/06/2020

Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region, Rostov Regional Court; Third Appellate Court

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

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

2,700

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