LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF BEKUZAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 44786/11;1884/12;9837/12;32631/12;37187/13;9612/14;28543/15;37353/15;43931/15 • ECHR ID: 001-168052
Document date: October 6, 2016
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
CASE OF BEKUZAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 44786/11;1884/12;9837/12;32631/12;37187/13;9612/14;28543/15;37353/15;43931/15 • ECHR ID: 001-168052
Document date: October 6, 2016
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BEKUZAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
( Application s no s . 44786/11 , 1884/12, 9837/12, 32631/12, 37187/13, 9612/14, 28543/15, 37353/15, 43931/15 )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bekuzarov and Others v. Russia ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2016 ,
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”).
3. Having studied the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations made in some cases, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention . In application no. 1884/12, the applicant also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention based on the same set of facts .
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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
7. 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:
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.”
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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, including the Court ’ s approach to the calculation of the six-month time-limit (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03 , § § 130 and 135, 22 May 2012 and Isay eva v. Azerbaijan , no. 36229/11 , § 80, 25 June 2015, with further references), it considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants ’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINT
12. In application no. 1884/12, a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention was also communicated to the Government in accordance with the relevant well-established established case-law of the Court (see appended table). Th is 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 disclose s a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov (cited above, §§ 161-164 ).
IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike certain applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention ;
5. Holds that there has been a violation as regards another complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. 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 6 October 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom 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 name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Representative name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
44786/11
24/06/2011
Timur Igorevich BEKUZAROV
09/10/1978
Gatsoyeva Veronika Vladimirovna
Vladikavkaz
02/03/2011 to 10/10/2012
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1,800
1884/12
05/12/2011
Ruslan Salimovich NAGUCHEV
15/08/1962
Khusht Ruslan Khamsudinovich
Yablonovskiy
30/06/2011 to
10/10/2012
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) – lack of procedural safeguards during the examination of the detention matter
1,800
9837/12
30/01/2012
Rafael Abdryakibovich MUSLIMOV
02/05/1982
28/06/2011 to
21/11/2011
4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
1,000
32631/12
19/04/2012
Andrey Olegovich KIM
20/06/1981
22/12/2008 to
31/05/2010
13/11/2010 to
22/02/2011
06/10/2011 to
30/05/2012
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 10 day(s)
3 month(s) and 10 day(s)
7 month(s) and 25 day(s)
2,500
37187/13
02/09/2013
Mikhail Rafaelovich FAKHRUTDINOV
03/11/1972
28/12/2011 to
31/01/2012
18/10/2012 to
17/07/2013
1 month(s) and 4 day(s)
9 month(s)
1,000
9612/14
12/03/2014
Ayrat Ildarovich SAFIN
09/12/1967
12/05/2011
pending
More than
5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 30 day(s)
5,300
28543/15
25/05/2015
Shakhin Abaskulu Ogly SHADLINSKIY
01/08/1960
22/11/2014
pending
More than
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 20 day(s)
1,900
37353/15
22/07/2015
Tatyana Viktorovna SUKHAREVA
09/12/1974
Arkhipova Mariya Sergeyevna
Moscow
10/07/2014 to
01/04/2015
8 month(s) and 23 day(s)
1,000
43931/15
11/08/2015
Yuriy Viktorovich ABRAMOV
21/06/1976
10/07/2012
pending
More than
4 year(s) and 2 month (s)
4,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
