CASE OF MAKSUTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 33982/17, 34627/17, 41626/17, 42038/17, 44472/17, 45860/17, 66874/17, 69349/17, 69439/17, 72445/17, ... • ECHR ID: 001-203973
Document date: July 30, 2020
- Inbound citations: 2
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 2
- •
- Outbound citations: 6
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MAKSUTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
( Application s no s . 33982/17 and 28 others -
see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 July 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maksutov and Others v. Russia ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 9 July 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 some applications, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Conv ention, 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 its case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages in court hearing rooms; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of the speedy review of the detention matters ; and Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, as regards the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial ) .
Loading citations...12 . The applicants in applications nos. 33982/17, 34627/17, 44472/17 and 45860/17 raised complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that the complaints are admissible but, since it has already examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications with regard to Article 5 of the Convention, there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
13 . The applicant in application no. 80092/17 also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was an effective remedy, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention alleged in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant ’ s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of application should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 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 month s, 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 month s 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 30 July 2020 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková
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
Date 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]
33982/17
04/04/2017
Radmir Yusifovich MAKSUTOV
31/03/1984
04/02/2015 to
03/07/2018
Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme C ourt of Bashkortostan Republic,
Privolzhskiy Military District Court
3 year (s)
and
5 month (s)
Collective detention orders;
the applicant ’ s detention pending the examination of the case file lasted for almost a year . The Government did not argue that the prolonged period of the applicant ’ s examination of the case file in the applicant ’ s case was due to any objective reasons (such as the volume of the case file). Neither did the domestic courts examine whether there had been any delays attributable to the investigating authorities.
There were no attempts on the part of the domestic authorities to speed up the applicant ’ s examination of the case file by making new arrangements. Moreover, the protracted length of that examination process evidently benefited the investigating authorities, who completed their investigation in the meantime. The trial of the applicant ’ s case lasted for almost a year .
Although there could have existed relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant ’ s detention at some stages of the proceedings, the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and specific justification for the continued application of the measure of restraint, coupled with the lack of diligence on their part .
4,600
34627/17
17/04/2017
Rustem Ravilevich GALLYAMOV
10/08/1981
Ablayeva Olga Valeryevna
Ufa
04/02/2015 to
03/07/2018
Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Cou rt of Bashkortostan Republic,
Privolzhskiy Military District Court
3 year (s)
and
5 month (s)
The applica nt in the present case was a co ‑ defendant in the same criminal proceedings as Mr Maksutov (application no. 33982/17 above)
The defects cited for the case of Mr Maksutov above are fully applicable to applicant in the present case
4,600
41626/17
24/05/2017
Andrey Nikolayevich USHANEV
04/06/1975
Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich
Voronezh
23/03/2017 to
12/10/2017
Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court
6 month (s) and
20 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.
1,300
42038/17
29/05/2017
Sergey Aleksandrovich ROGOZHIN
02/05/1986
Loktev Sergey Aleksandrovich
Lipetsk
15/11/2016 to
14/11/2017
Levoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk,
Lipetsk Regional Court
1 year (s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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
44472/17
17/05/2017
Stanislav Vladimirovich MOLKOV
07/11/1982
10/10/2014 to
30/03/2017
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic
2 year (s) and
5 month (s) and
21 day (s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; as the case progressed, failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal sit uation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding.
3,400
45860/17
05/06/2017
Timur Narimanovich UZBEKOV
27/03/1990
14/10/2014 to
08/12/2017
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan,
Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, Privolzhskiy Military District Court
3 year (s) and
1 month (s) and
25 day (s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, in particular taking into account the period for studying the case-file; as the case progressed, 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, such as his lack of financial resources, lack of property outside Russia, absence of travel passport, the state of his health.
4,200
66874/17
04/09/2017
Sergey Viktorovich MESHCHANOV
18/08/1982
Ponomarev Askar Usmanovich
Kazan
28/02/2017 to
29/09/2017
Sovtskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
7 month (s) and 2 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 sooner than it has been done.
1,300
69349/17
04/09/2017
Aleksey Yuryevich PARSHIN
10/03/1982
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
18/12/2010 to
29/05/2017
Vologda Town Court;
Vologda Regional Court;
St Petersburg City Court;
Moscow City Court
6 year (s) and
5 month (s) and
12 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 the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed.
6,500
69439/17
15/09/2017
Sergey Sergeyevich POLYANSKIY
03/04/1984
Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich
Astrakhan
04/04/2016 to
06/04/2017
Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court
1 year (s) and 3 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal sit uation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding;
as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
1,400
72445/17
15/09/2017
Vasiliy Vasilyevich ZABOYEV
23/05/1983
30/05/2015 to
20/04/2017
Ukhta Town Court;
Ezhvinsk Town Court;
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
1 year (s) and 10 month (s) and 22 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;
as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
2,700
80092/17
13/11/2017
Sergey Dmitriyevich SHATALKIN
08/02/1963
Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich
Krasnodar
11/10/2014 to
07/05/2018
Tuapse Town Court;
Krasnodar Regional Court;
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
3 year (s) and 6 month (s) and 27 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 the case progressed.
4,800
2115/18
25/12/2017
Sergey Petrovich POYMANOV
15/02/1972
Zhukov Kirill Sergeyevich
Moscow
22/05/2017 to
21/11/2017
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow,
Moscow City Court
6 month (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed,
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
1,300
3758/18
20/12/2017
Andrey Alekseyevich LYSHCHIK
10/10/1966
Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don
29/05/2017
to
15/11/2019
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don;
Rostov Regional Court
More than 3 year (s) and
6 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;
failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
3,400
5964/18
15/01/2018
Vyacheslav Viktorovich KAZANTSEV
13/08/1966
Belov Dmitriy Olegovich
Moscow
17/02/2016
To 10/07/2019
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow,
Moscow City Court
More than 4 year (s) and
3 month (s) and
18 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;
failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
4,600
6078/18
22/01/2018
Alzhanbek Kazbekovich GIMBATOV
04/04/1996
Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
15/06/2016
pending
Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow; Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
More than 3 year (s) and 11 month (s) and
20 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 the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal complaint against extension order of 24/07/2017 was examined by the Moscow City Court on 09/10/2017
(77 day s); appeal against extension on 01/11/2017 was examined by the Moscow City Court on 22/11/2017
(20 day s);
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant was placed in a metal cage on numerous occasions since 08/02/2017 during the hearings before the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow.
9,750
6151/18
23/01/2018
Mikhail Innokentyevich CHERNYSHEV
18/03/1990
Luneva Natalya Dmitriyevna
Noginsk
09/08/2014 to
22/11/2017
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
3 year (s) and
3 month (s) and
14 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 the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
4,400
7332/18
11/01/2018
Shamil Magomedovich GAMIDOV
07/09/1981
Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don
03/06/2016
to 19/02/2020
Len inskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don,
Rostov Regional Court
More than 4 year (s) and
1 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
5,100
8813/18
07/02/2018
Anton Vladimirovich BORDOVSKIY
28/01/1966
Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich
Moscow
05/06/2015 to
21/11/2018
Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow;
3 year (s) and
5 month (s) and
17 day (s)
Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal decision of 28/11/2017 upheld the detention order of 26/10/2017, with the examination thus having taken almost a month ;
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
6,100
11688/18
27/02/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich LYSENKO
19/06/1962
Lysenko Yekaterina Sergeyevna
Kaliningrad
04/10/2017
pending
Guryevskiy District Court of Kaliningrad;
Kaliningrad Regional Court
More than 2 year (s) and
8 month (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
3,600
11976/18
26/02/2018
Anatoliy Ivanovich SKOROVAROV
18/10/1956
Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don
28/04/2017
pending
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don;
Rostov Regional Court
More than 3 year (s) and
1 month (s) and
7 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
4,200
13288/18
03/03/2018
Sevak Lenyayevich VARDANYAN
01/09/1986
Dolgoborodova Galina Nikolayevna
St Petersburg
19/08/2015 to
26/01/2018
Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg ;
St Petersburg City Court
2 year (s) and
5 month (s) and
8 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;
failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
3,400
13715/18
12/03/2018
Yuriy Sergeyevich RESHETNIKOV
08/04/1986
Zhelonkina Yelena Nikolayevna
Penza
28/11/2017
pending
Military Court of 235 th Garrison; Moscow Circuit Military Court
More than 2 year (s) and
6 month (s) and
5 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
3,500
14480/18
12/03/2018
Dmitriy Nikolayevich CHEKMAREV
01/08/1989
Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
23/03/2017
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 12 day (s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;
failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
2,000
29950/18
24/05/2018
Aleksandr Sergeyevich SIDORETS
29/08/1976
01/03/2012 to
29/10/2018
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
6 year (s) and
7 month (s) and
29 day (s)
Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
6,500
40558/18
19/11/2018
Yevgeniy Andreyevich IBETOV
24/01/1991
28/02/2018
pending
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
More than 2 year (s) and
3 month (s) and
7 day (s)
Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
3,100
45663/18
10/09/2018
Aleksey Ivanovich LOBOV
25/11/1980
Podoplelova Olga Germanovna
Moscow
15/02/2018 to
15/02/2019
Presnensky District Court of Moscow;
Moscow City Court
1 year (s) and
1 day (s)
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.
1,400
55018/18
09/11/2018
Dmitriy Viktorovich SAZONOV
16/10/1971
Taraborin Dmitriy Alekseyevich
Samara
25/07/2018
pending
Samara District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court
More than 1 year (s) and 10 month (s) and
10 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.
2,700
12258/19
04/02/2019
Igor Viktorovich BAZHIN
10/06/1977
01/09/2017 to
25/10/2018
Manskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
1 year (s) and
1 month (s) and
25 day (s)
Failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.
1,600
17245/19
18/03/2019
Marks- Agness Vladimirovna KALASHNIK-SAVELCHENKO
09/09/1990
Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna
Rostov-on-Don
27/11/2017
pending
Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region; Rostov Regional Court
More than 2 year (s) and
6 month (s) and
8 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.