THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ARSENTYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 17970/10 and 5 others ‑

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

29 March 2018

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

In the case of Arsentyev and Others v. Russia ,

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

Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 8 March 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 .

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 that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long . They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read 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 and the Government ’ s objection concerning the six-month time-limit and exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant in application no. 75363/16, 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 the case-law governing the application of the six-month and exhaustion rules to cases brought under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Pshevecherskiy v. Russia , no. 28957/02, §§ 53/54, 24 May 2007), the Court dismisses the Government ’ s objection raised in respect of applicatio n no. 75363/16 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 . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11. 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.”

12. 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.

13. 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

(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 29 March 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Luis López Guerra

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

Representative name and location

Period of detention

Length of detention

Courts which issued detention orders/examined appeals

Specific defects

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

17970/10

24/02/2010

Mikhail Vladimirovich Arsentyev

04/07/1985

13/10/2009 to

30/08/2010

10 month(s) and

18 day(s)

Irkutsk Regional Court; Military Court of the East-Siberian Circuit; Military Commission of the Supreme Court of Russia; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

- 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, colliding or absconding;

- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

- collective detention orders.

1,000

63005/16

20/10/2016

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Kuchulov

20/11/1981

04/06/2015 to

14/11/2016

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

11 day(s)

Tobolsk Town Court of the Tyumen Region; Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen; Tyumen Regional Court

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

1,600

67558/16

11/11/2016

Oleg Vasilyevich Kurosh

09/12/1987

16/09/2015

pending

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

6 day(s)

Syktyvkar Town Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

- 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, 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.

2,500

69128/16

31/10/2016

Marat Khalilovich Sabirov

08/07/1978

04/12/2013 to

23/03/2017

3 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

20 day(s)

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic; Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit

- collective detention orders;

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

3,400

71484/16

19/11/2016

Saveliy Mikhaylovich Motoshkin

01/02/1977

13/01/2016 to

30/06/2016

5 month(s) and

18 day(s)

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

- 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, colliding or absconding;

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

1,000

75363/16

28/11/2016

Daniil Sergeyevich Demidov

12/12/1969

Anikina Natalya Anatolyevna

Moscow

24/02/2014

pending

More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)

Moscow Regional Court; Appellate Commission of the Moscow 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 re-offending, colliding or absconding;

- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

- collective detention orders;

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

4,100

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