THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BOKHONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 74883/17 and 8 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 January 2021

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

In the case of Bokhonov 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 17 December 2020 ,

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 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. 74883/17, 249/18, 28330/19 and 820/20, 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, regarding the excessive length of the review of detention matters .

12 . In applications nos. 74883/17, 4237/18 and 820/20 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 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 21 January 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]

74883/17

18/09/2017

Aleksandr Valeriyevich BOKHONOV

1975Ivanova Irina Aleksandrovna

Le Puy-en- Velay

07/04/2017 to

Shchelkovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court

11 month(s) and

23 day(s)

As the case progressed:

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

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Complaint about lengthy review of detention extension decisions by the appellate court: on 22/06/2017 (30 days after the first instance decision)

1,700

249/18

19/12/2017

Konstantin Anatolyevich PONOMAREV

1971Stavitskaya Anna Edvardovna

Moscow

07/06/2017

pending

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

Moscow City Court

More than

3 year(s) and

4 month(s) and

15 day(s)

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; “white-collar” crime; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention –

Detention order of 01/12/2017, appeal against it lodged on 04/12/2017 - appellate decision on 10/01/2018;

detention order of 02/03/2018, appealed against it submitted on 05/03/2018 - appellate decision on 02/04/2018.

5,200

4237/18

25/12/2017

Dmitriy Valeryevich BORISOV

1985Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna

Moscow

08/07/2017 to

22/02/2018

Tverskoy District Court,

Moscow City Court

7 month(s) and

15 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.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention,

detention order of 09/06/2017 was upheld on appeal on

14/07/2017 (35 days),

detention order of 06/09/2017 was upheld on appeal on 02/10/2017 (26 days), and

detention order of 16/10/2017 was upheld on appeal

13/11/2017 (28 days).

1,300

14053/18

12/03/2018

Kirill Viktorovich GOLOVASHKIN

1991Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich

Nizhniy Novgorod

22/03/2017 to

03/08/2018

Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

1 year(s) and

4 month(s) and

13 day(s)

As the case progressed:

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

27001/18

Andrey Nikolayevich GORDIYENKO

1984Sergeychik Yuriy Sergeyevich

Moscow

07/09/2017 to

21/10/2018

Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and

1 month(s) and

15 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.

1,600

14634/19

07/03/2019

Aleksey Petrovich EKKERT

1980Sokolov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich

Khimki

10/03/2016

29 /10/2020

Basmanny District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court;

Tagansky District Court

4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 20 day(s)

Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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;

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

6,200

28330/19

17/05/2019

Vyacheslav Sergeyevich LUKICHEV

1994MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre

Moscow

04/11/2018 to

14/03/2019

Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad; Kaliningrad Regional Court; Moscow Circuit Military Court

4 month(s) and

11 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the extension detention order of 28/02/2019 was lodged on 02/03/2019 and was examined by the Moscow Circuit Military Court on 28/03/2019

(26 days).

1,700

47326/19

02/09/2019

Aleksey Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV

1981Skoryy Mikhail Gennadyevich

Moscow

15/05/2019

pending

Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

More than

1 year(s) and

7 month(s)

As case progressed:

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

1,300

820/20

11/12/2019

Vadim Eduardovich ROGOZHIN

1958Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna

Moscow

04/12/2017 to

25/12/2017

18/06/2018 to

17/06/2019

Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow;

Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

22 day(s)

1 year(s)

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

1,400

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