THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BELSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 11318/18 and 7 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 February 2021

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

In the case of Belskiy 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 Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 4 February 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 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.”

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 has already found a violation in respect of the 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. 11318/18, 42491/18, 56059/18 and 30706/19, 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 findings in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) , concerning placement in a metal cage during court hearings, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, in the part concerning poor conditions of transport to and from the courthouse and the lack of speedy review of pre-trial detention .

12 . In applications nos. 11318/18, 42491/18 and 31979/19, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13 . The Court has examined these applications 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 applications nos. 11318/18, 42491/18 and 31979/19 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 25 February 2021 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt 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]

11318/18

15/02/2018

Vladimir Aleksandrovich BELSKIY

1964

15/03/2017 to

23/11/2017

Priozerskiy City Court of Leningrad Region,

Leningrad Regional Court,

Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg,

St Petersburg City Court

8 months and 9 days

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

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - 23/11/2017, Priozerskiy City Court of Leningrad Region .

9,750

42491/18

27/08/2018

Vsevolod Sergeyevich LOSEV

1987Tretyak Tatyana Aleksandrovna

Gelendzhik

09/12/2016 to

01/11/2019

03/11/2020

pending

Gelendzhik Town Court,

Krasnodar Regional Court

More than 3 years and 1 month and 7 days

U se 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 .

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in a van on multiple occasion between the detention facilities and the Gelendzhik Town Court and the Krasnodar Regional Court from 10/12/2016 onwards; proceedings still pending; transport on-going; extremely cramped conditions; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air and natural light;

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage during the detention, pre-trial and trial hearings held at the Gelendzhik Town Court on numerous occasions from 10/12/2016 onwards (last time on 25/07/2018); proceedings are still pending .

9,750

56059/18

13/11/2018

Shamil Khazhgaliyevich SHARIPOV

1977

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Privolzhskiy District Military Court

3 years and 5 months and 27 days

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 .

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 of the applicant between the detention facility and the court house on numerous occasions from 18/09/2017 to 30/07/2018; 0.3 sq. m of personal space; transport by van and detention in convoy and transit cells; lack of ventilation, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking .

6,100

26595/19

06/05/2019

Mikhail Anatolyevich MITROSHCHUK

1979

11/09/2017 to

31/05/2019

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year and 8 months and 21 days

F ailure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts .

2,500

30706/19

29/05/2019

Vadim Sergeyevich KOMORNIKOV

1988

26/10/2017 to

24/10/2019

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

1 year and 11 months and 29 days

F ragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; 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 – 46 days of appellate review of the detention order (Appellate Decision of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic of 01/04/2019 against the detention order of 12/02/2019).

3,400

30714/19

24/05/2019

Leonid LIGER

1976Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna

Moscow

07/07/2016

to

19/08/2019

Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

3 years and 1 month and 13 days

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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; as the case progressed failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention .

4,200

31979/19

05/06/2019

Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich USHAKOV

1983Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich

Krasnodar

08/10/2018 to

04/07/2019

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court

8 months and 27 days

F ailure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; the applicant is charged with misuse of funds - "white collar" type of crime; 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 .

1,300

37174/19

23/05/2019

Saitgaray Zakir ogly KAMALEYEV

1991

08/10/2016 to

03/06/2019

Novo- Savinskiy District Court of Kazan,

Sovetskiy District Court,

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 years and 7 months and 27 days

F ragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed .

3,600

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