Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ANANCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 7026/10 and 25 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

This version was rectified on 17 September 2019

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.

STRASBOURG

2 1 February 2019

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

In the case of Ananchev and Others v. Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019 ,

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. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

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

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

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 as follows:

“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.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. In applications nos. 7026/10, 50230/15, 38251/17 and 70735/17, 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, §§ 152-158, 22 May 2012, concerning delays in review of detention, and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, regarding absence of detainees from civil proceedings.

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In applications nos. 41269/17, 46650/17, 72606/17 and 73045/17 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles 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.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 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,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court , as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 41269/17, 46650/17, 72606/17 and 73045/17 inadmissible;

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention ;

4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5. Holds

(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.

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková

Acting D eputy 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 expe nses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

7026/10

11/01/2010

Dmitriy Nikolayevich Ananchev

05/11/1980

30/01/2009 to

18/02/2010

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 20 day(s)

F ragility of the reasons employed by the co urts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of abs conding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation redu cing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint .

Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to attend court hearings in his tort proceedings against the State before the first-instance court, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (judgment of 13/05/2013), and appeal court, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

(judgment of 11/12/2013)

2,600

63685/14

02/09/2014

Igor Vladimirovich Shchenikov

07/05/1979

Shprits Yevgeniy Viktorovich

Yaroslavl

26/10/2013 to

19/10/2015

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 day(s)

U se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of abs conding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offe nding, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention .

2,600

50230/15

06/10/2015

Aleksandr Vadimovich Khoroshavin

26/11/1959

Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna

Strasbourg

04/03/2015 to

09/02/2018

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 6 day(s)

F ailure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as t he case progressed;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of re straint as the case progressed;

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

collective detention orders .

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed appeal review of detention renewals:

24/05/2016 Moscow City Court – Appeal 05/07/2016 Moscow City Court;

04/03/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 06/04/2015 Moscow City Court;

22/04/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 24/06/2015 Moscow City Court;

24/08/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 05/10/2015 Moscow City Court;

25/11/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 03/02/2016 Moscow City Court

5,100

9712/17

24/01/2017

Konstantin Igorevich Ramzin

16/07/1990

Sokalskiy Boris Borisovich

Moscow

28/04/2015 to

21/03/2017

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow Regional Court

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 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 abs conding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applyi ng other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding .

2,700

38251/17

15/05/2017

Viktor Ivanovich Filatov

27/10/1961

Minina Irina Aleksandrovna

Moscow

Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich

Moscow [2]

29/06/2015

P ending .

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Cour t, Meshchanskiy District Court,

Supreme Court of Russia

More than

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

C ollect ive detention orders;

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failur e to examine the possibility of applying other measures of res traint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention .

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention order of 27/09/2016, appeal review on 15/11/2016

6,300

41269/17

30/05/2017

Arman Slavikovich Ayrapetyan

21/07/1977

Yermakova Galina Alekseyevna

Vladivostok

01/10/2014 to

05/02/2018

Ussuriysk Town Court of the Primorye Region; Primorye Regional Court

3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 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 j ustice, as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re- offending, colluding or absc onding, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applyi ng other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention .

4,600

46292/17

14/06/2017

Aleksandr Olegovich Ebingard

25/11/1988

17/09/2015 to

12/02/2018

Syktyvkar Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 27 day(s)

Collective detention orders;

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as cased progressed;

failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint .

3,300

46650/17

02/06/2017

Denis Igorevich Armyakov

22/04/1979

12/12/2012

P ending .

Syktyvkar Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

More than

6 year(s) and 27 day(s)

C ollective detention orders;

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

7,900

48129/17

29/05/2017

Konstantin Ivanovich Mashnin

27/12/1979

20/01/2016

P ending .

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskyy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 day(s)

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, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed .

3,900

48492/17

26/05/2017

Farid Ramazanovich Mustafayev

08/07/1987

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit;

Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic

3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)

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

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 .

4,700

49572/17

11/06/2017

Konstantin Viktorovich Voronov

28/12/1983

20/06/2015 to

28/06/2017

Yugorsk iy District Court of theKhanty

Mansy Autonomous Region;

Khanty- Mansy District Court of the Khanty- Mansy Autonomous Region; Khanty- Mansy Autonomous Regional Court of Yugra

2 year(s) and 9 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 abs conding 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 .

2,700

60773/17

10/08/2017

Anatoliy Nikolayevich Livada

21/04/1953

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich

Rostov-on-Don

27/03/2017

P ending .

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than

1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 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 .

2,600

64359/17

17/08/2017

Ilnar Marselyevich Abdulmanov

27/11/1980

07/02/2017

P ending .

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than

1 year(s) and 11 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; 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 .

2,600

64589/17

21/08/2017

Yuriy Ivanovich Kucherenko

15/04/1983

Kucherenko Roman Ivanovich

Stavropol

03/03/2017 to

19/11/2017

Promyshlennyy District Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court

8 month(s) and 17 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-offe nding, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint .

1,300

68736/17

05/09/2017

Mikhail Nikolayevich Belyayev

15/10/1968

Okushko Tatyana Borisovna

Moscow

20/02/2017

P ending .

Taganskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

More than

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)

C ollective detention orders;

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 .

2,700

70196/17

10/09/2017

Vladimir Leonidovich Korostelev

08/02/1950

07/10/2015

P ending .

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

More than

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

U se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of ab sconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed;

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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 .

4,400

70735/17

01/09/2017

Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Aydakin

25/02/1998

Filonova Oksana Gennadyevna

Sarov

21/03/2017 to

16/06/2017

Sarov Town Court;

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

2 month(s) and 27 day(s)

U se 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 .

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the request for a change of the measure of restraint dismissed by decision of the Sarov Town Court of 06/04/2017 was not examined on appeal.

Decision of 21/04/2017 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court which noted that such a decision was not amenable to an appeal as it was issued while the criminal proceedings were still pending and that it could only be resolved when the trial court was to determine t he merits of the charges in the final court judgment. However, it was examined by the cassation instance court on 29/06/2017 - that is more than 2 months later .

500

72606/17

29/09/2017

Viktor Ivanovich Abrosichkin

03/02/1952

Gusakov Aleksandr Ivanovich

Moscow

01/02/2017

P ending .

Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

More than

1 year(s) and

11 month(s) and 7 day(s)

C ollective detention orders;

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of ass umptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of abs conding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding .

2,600

73045/17

03/10/2017

Maksim Andreyevich Alekseyenko

10/11/1981

22/03/2017

P ending .

Moscow District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod;

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

More than

1 year(s) and

9 month(s) and 17 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 .

2,600

75119/17

18/10/2017

Khadidzha Ruslanovna Khamkhoyeva

25/05/1992

Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna

Moscow

29/01/2017 to

13/04/2018

Prigorodnyy District Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic;

Supreme Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic

1 year(s) and 2 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 .

1,700

76640/17

02/10/2017

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Sementsov

19/01/1980

27/04/2013 to

29/12/2015

20/07/2016

P ending .

Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok; Ussuriysk Dis trict Court of the Primorye Region;

Primorye Regional Court

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

More than

2 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

19 day(s)

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

6,800

77729/17

30/10/2017

Denis Vladimirovich Irza

01/10/1982

Abubakarov Magamed Saltanmuratovich

Nalchik

16/04/2015

P ending .

Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the K abardino-Balkariya Republic and

Prokhladnenskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic;

Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic

More than

3 year(s) and

8 month(s) and 23 day(s)

U se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed;

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

5,100

79395/17

07/11/2017

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Semenov

02/04/1984

02/11/2016 to

10/10/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyar sk; Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

11 month(s) and 9 day(s)

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

1,300

80186/17

23/10/2017

Roman Vladimirovich Chernoknizhnyy

31/01/1979

01/03/2012

P ending .

Syktyvkar Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

More than

6 year(s) and

10 month(s) and 7 day(s)

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

9,200

80336/17

14/11/2017

Ruslan Andreyevich Piotrovskiy

12/10/1988

Rassokhin Artem Aleksandrovich

St Petersburg

02/05/2017 to

05/04/2018

Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg;

St Petersburg City Court

11 month(s) and 4 day(s)

U se 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

80395/17

13/11/2017

Maksim Anatolyevich Kopytkov

02/06/1985

06/12/2016

P ending .

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

More than

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

U se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice .

2,900

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

[2] . Rectified on 17 September 2019, information about the second representative, Mr Izhikov , was added.

Menu

CASE OF ANANCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF ANANCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI