THIRD SECTION

CASE OF OGLY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 49998/17 and 8 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 July 2018

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

In the case of Ogly 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 5 July 2018 ,

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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention . In application no. 53125/17, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 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 applicants 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, including the Government ’ argument of non-exhaus tion related to application no. 49998/17, 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, including that concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies in the length-of-detention cases (see Polonskiy v. Russia , no. 30033/05, §§ 131-32, 19 March 2009), the Court dismisses the Government ’ s objection and considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants ’ 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 application no. 53125/17, the applicant also submitted a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. This complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Zubkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2 others , §§ 146-149, 7 November 2017, dealing with the lack of speedy review of the detention matters .

IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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.”

13. 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.

14. 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 applications admissible;

3. Holds that these applications 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 complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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 26 July 2018 , 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 name

Date of birth

Period of detention

Length of detention

Courts which

issued detention

orders/examined

appeals

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]

49998/17

30/06/2017

Kristina Nikolayevna Ogly

18/09/1985

30/11/2013 to

16/02/2015

1 year and 2 months and 18 days

22/03/2016 to

16/06/2017

1 year and 2 months and 26 days

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Presidium of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court / Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

- collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

2,600

50053/17

21/06/2017

Konstantin Andreyevich Kuznetsov

26/08/1987

30/06/2015

pending

More than

2 years and 11 months and 9 days

Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude / Lipetsk Regional Court

- collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,000

53125/17

26/06/2017

Dmitriy Shamilyevich Khismatulin

01/10/1981

01/04/2015 to

03/02/2017

1 year and 10 months and 3 days

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Yemelyanovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

- collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant ’ s appeal against the court decision on detention extension dated 02/12/2016 was examined by the regional court only on 10/01/2017.

2,700

53511/17

10/07/2017

Aleksey Sergeyevich Ignatovich

22/06/1988

05/03/2015 to

13/03/2017

2 years and 9 days

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

- collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

2,100

68702/17

08/08/2017

Andrey Sergeyevich Morozov

06/08/1976

03/04/2013 to

05/02/2018

4 years and 10 months and 3 days

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

- collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

5,100

68989/17

07/08/2017

Maksim Aleksandrovich Fandeyev

20/11/1991

19/06/2013 to

01/02/2016

2 years and 7 months and 14 days

21/02/2017 to

01/02/2018

11 months and 12 days

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

- 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 reoffending, colliding 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.

3,700

69033/17

12/09/2017

Denis Aleksandrovich Krasnopevtsev

11/02/1984

23/01/2017 to

14/11/2017

9 months and 23 days

Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Karelia Republic / Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic

-failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

1,000

70474/17

19/09/2017

Yevgeniy Viktorovich Paramonov

20/07/1978

25/04/2014 to

11/07/2017

3 years and 2 months and 17 days

Kirovskiy District Court of St Petersburg / Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg /

St Petersburg City Court

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

3,300

71637/17

18/09/2017

Maksim Aleksandrovich Muchkov

02/02/1991

27/09/2013 to

08/06/2017

3 years and 8 months and 13 days

Yemelyanovskiy Distrit Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region / Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Beryozovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region / Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

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

3,900

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