THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 52180/17 and 16 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 July 2020

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

In the case of Ananyev 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 11 June 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 .

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 . As concerns application no. 12186/18, the Court would like to stress that this is the second application lodged by Mr Kamenev concerning one and the same lengthy detention on remand. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the first application (no. 16417/16) lodged by Mr Kamenev on 15 March 2016 on account of his on-going unreasonably long detention on remand (see Vikharev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 32357/05 and 5 others, 16 February 2017). Following that judgment, Mr Kamenev remained in detention pending trial proceedings against him until his conviction on 18 December 2017. On 28 February 2018, which is within six months from the final order authorising the extension of his detention on remand, he lodged the present application with the Court.

9 . In their observations lodged on 19 September 2018 the Government merely noted that the domestic decisions authorising the extension of Mr Kamenev ’ s detention on remand contained relevant and sufficient reasons justifying his continued detention. The Court reiterates that in principle there is nothing to prevent the Court from examining a subsequent application raising a new issue undecided by the original judgment (see Mehemi v. France (no. 2) , no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003 ‑ IV; Pailot v. France , 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ II; Leterme v. France , 29 April 1998, Reports 1998 ‑ III; and Rando v. Italy , no. 38498/97, 15 February 2000).

10 . In the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which the Court found a violation of that right during a certain period, it is not unusual for the Court to examine a second application concerning a violation of the same right during the subsequent period (see Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 21071/05, § 33, 10 April 2008, with further references).

11 . The Court observes that application no. 16417/16 concerned the applicant ’ s excessively long detention on remand. When the Court delivered its judgment on 16 February 2017, having found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and having made an award in respect of the period preceding its judgment, the applicant was still in detention on remand.

12 . The present application, which the applicant lodged on 28 February 2018, concerns his continuous detention on remand in the period subsequent to the Court ’ s judgment of 16 February 2017.

13 . The Court acknowledges that it has no jurisdiction to review the measures adopted in the domestic legal order to put an end to the violations found in its judgment in the first case brought by the applicant. It may, nevertheless, take stock of subsequent factual developments. In this respect, the Court observes that the applicant continued to be detained for another ten months after the Court had delivered its judgment in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Wasserman (no. 2) , cited above, § 36).

14 . It follows that, in so far as the applicant ’ s complaint concerns the further period during which he continued to be detained on remand allegedly in the absence of proper reasons for that, it has not been previously examined by the Court. The Court therefore has competence to entertain this complaint. Moreover, when assessing the reasonableness of the remaining period between 16 February 2017 and 18 December 2017 for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court “can take into consideration the fact that an applicant has previously spent time in custody pending trial” (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 130, 22 May 2012; for similar approach by the Court see Kolosyuk and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 45162/13 and 4 others, 14 June 2018).

15 . As concerns all of the applications in the present case, the Court notes that 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.

16 . 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.

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

18 . 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.”

19 . 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.

20 . 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 2 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

Amoun t awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

52180/17

13/07/2017

Anatoliy Yevgenyevich ANANYEV

10/10/1973

31/03/2013 to

31/08/2017

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)

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

6,000

78461/17

01/03/2018

Samir Ibragim ogly GUSEYNOV

21/06/1979

31/03/2013 to

11/04/2018

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

5 year(s) and 12 day(s)

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

6,500

9326/18

12/01/2018

Aleksey Nikolayevich RYBUSHKIN

10/10/1978

10/05/2016

pending

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

More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and

25 day(s)

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

5,200

9682/18

31/01/2018

Dmitriy Anatolyevich BYKOV

25/07/1991

Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich

Kursk

02/03/2017 to

24/08/2018

Leninskiy District Court of Kursk;

Kursk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 23 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

2,100

12186/18

28/02/2018

Vitaliy Aleksandrovich KAMENEV

02/07/1976

28/02/2014 to

18/12/2017

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

3 year(s), 9 month(s) and 21 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

On 16 February 2017 the Court already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant ’ s detention on remand within the same set of criminal proceedings with the period starting on 28/02/2014 (application no. 16417/16) (see Vikharev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 32357/05 and 5 others, 16 February 2017). The applicant remained in detention on remand following the Court ’ s judgment and until his conviction on 18/12/2017

1,300

16922/18

15/03/2018

Vitaliy Viktorovich KOSHENOK

10/03/1977

Nazarov Ivan

Rostov-on-Don

18/09/2017 to

27/02/2018

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don;

Rostov Regional Court

5 month(s) and

10 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

1,300

19344/18

12/04/2018

Mikhail Leonidovich KOLMYKOV

08/11/1962

12/10/2017

pending

Len inskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don;

Rostov Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and

23 day(s)

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

3,500

38490/18

31/07/2018

Ilnaz Ravilovich SAFIULLIN

29/12/1986

14/03/2017 to

05/02/2020

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

Military Court of Appeal

2 year(s) and

10 month(s) and

23 day(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 as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding while the proceedings were already pending at the advanced stage; collective detention orders merely listing the names of the applicants and finding no grounds to change the measure of restraint without assessment of personal situation of each of co-defendants, the individual risks they could have or not posed and alternative measures which could have been individually applied

4,000

41919/18

23/08/2018

Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich ILYIN

20/06/1972

Okushko Tatyana Borisovna

Moscow

01/12/2017

pending

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and

23 day(s)

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

3,300

47949/18

01/10/2018

Aleksandr Pavlovich BOSTRIKOV

05/05/1979

26/04/2017

pending

Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and

29 day(s)

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, in particular taking into account the applicant having been detained for a lengthy period (at least until 07/12/2018) since 04/07/2017 for the sole purpose of the need to study the case-file

3,900

49783/18

20/09/2018

Aydar Radikovich NURIYEV

12/02/1987

26/01/2016

pending

Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and

29 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, in particular taking into account the applicant having been detained for a lengthy period (at least until April 2019 according to the latest information provided by the applicant to the Court) since 23/06/2017 for the sole purpose of the need to study the case-file

5,600

58046/18

21/11/2018

Azat Ilgizovich ZAGIYEV

21/07/1990

17/10/2017 to

26/04/2019

Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

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

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to properly assess the applicant ’ s personal situation, to provide clear reasoning for the prolonged detention, in addition to the gravity of the charge; extremely scarce reasoning of the detention orders

2,200

368/19

19/12/2018

Aleksey Georgiyevich MAYNAGASHEV

03/01/1981

Ayeshin Dmitriy Alekseyevich

Abakan

02/11/2015 to

24/04/2019

Abakan Town Court; Supreme Court of the Khakasiya Republic

3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 23 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; collective detention orders

4,700

1078/19

06/12/2018

Larisa Nikolayevna LYAKHOVETS

15/06/1981

30/06/2015 to

12/11/2019

Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude; Supreme Court of the Buryatiya Republic;

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court

4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)

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

5,900

3071/19

28/12/2018

Denis Igorevich IVANOV

25/07/2000

Stupin Yevgeniy Viktorovich

Moscow

19/09/2018 to

11/04/2019

Ivanteyevka Town Court of the Moscow Region;

Moscow Regional Court

6 month(s) and 24 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, taking into account the applicant ’ s personal situation, such as his young age, family ties, lack of a previous criminal record, permanent place of residence, his good conduct certificates, the fact that he had admitted his guilt and was willing to cooperate with the investigating authorities, and the fact that he had been charged with a non-violent crime

1,300

15698/19

06/03/2019

Tatyana Anatolyevna RUF

12/12/1963

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich

Rostov-on-Don

10/12/2018

pending

Lenins kiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don;

Rostov Regional Court

More than 1 year(s) and 4 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

2,000

17316/19

15/03/2019

Komil Karimovich MATIYEV

04/09/1980

14/03/2017

pending

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 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

4,200

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