THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GUZHVA AND MUKHAMETZYANOV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 8588/20 and 33490/20 – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

27 October 2022

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

In the case of Guzhva and Mukhametzyanov v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli , President,

Andreas Zünd ,

Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,

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

4. The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

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 applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 5 § 4

“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

7. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland , no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia , no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting twenty-six days was found to be in breach of the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4).

8. In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154 ‑ 58, 22 May 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 appeal proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

11. 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings, and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92 ‑ 156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of effective remedies in this connection.

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, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14. The Court further 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 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 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention

(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

First-instance court and date of detention order

Appeal instance court and date of decision

Procedural deficiencies

Other complaints under well-established case-law

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

(in euros) [1]

8588/20

01/02/2020

Gera Yuryevna GUZHVA

1995Natalya Viktorovna Yastrebova

Rostov-on-Don

Rostov Regional Court 28/11/2019

Third Court of Appeal 27/12/2019

lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC],

no. 5826/03,

§§ 154-58,

22 May 2012)

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport by van to take part in the criminal proceedings or court hearings since 26/10/2018; 0.3 sq. m. of personal space; inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, trips in a bent position.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

1,300

33490/20

20/07/2020

Eduard Mullanurovich MUKHAMETZYANOV

1983Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan

25/05/2020

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

17/07/2020

lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC],

no. 5826/03,

§§ 154-58,

22 May 2012)

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, from 05/06/2019 until 27/08/2020. Judgment date 27/08/2020.

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, numerous occasions of transport between the detention facilities and the courthouse from 23/08/2018 to 27/08/2020, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

9,000

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