THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KULAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 26200/20 and 8 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

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

In the case of Kulakov and Others 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 15 September 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 excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants 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 principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads 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, 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 applicants’ pre-trial detention was unreasonable.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

11. Some 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, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; and Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016, relating to the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings.

12. In applications nos. 26200/20, 38625/20 and 10466/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13. The Court has examined the complaints 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.

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 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 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 13 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 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year 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 expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

26200/20

30/06/2020

Andrey Nikolayevich KULAKOV

1974Artem Borisovich Sarbashev

Moscow

31/05/2019 to

27/10/2021

Serpukhovo Town Court, Moscow Regional Court

2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 28 day(s)

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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

2,500

28025/20

13/06/2020

Sergey Nikolayevich IVANCHENKO

1976Pavel Vasilyevich Vekshin

Arkhangelsk

09/11/2014

pending

Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk; Arkhangelsk Regional Court; 2nd General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal

More than

7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s)

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

5,000

28823/20

01/06/2020

Yuriy Arkadyevich IVSHIN

1964Dmitriy Konstantinovich Sobolev

Borovichi

20/03/2019

pending

Borovichskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region, Novgorod Regional Court

More than

3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 13 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

3,500

38625/20

24/08/2020

Anatoliy Tikhonovich POPKOV

1963Yuriy Mikhaylovich Nikolayev

Belgorod

18/10/2019

pending

Basmanniy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Supreme Court of Russia

More than

2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 15 day(s)

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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal of 16/09/2020 against the detention order of 15/09/2020 was examined on 12/10/2020 (26 days); Appeal of 10/01/2021 against the detention order of 25/12/2020 was examined on 04/02/2021 (25 days);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings – on 03/03/2020 by final judgment of the

Sverdlovsk District Court of Belgorod the applicant was convicted of an administrative offence for having violated the rules of storage of firearms.

3,900

2099/21

06/10/2020

Igor Olegovich MARTYANOV

1985

10/08/2017 to

25/08/2020

Moskovskiy District Court of Kazan, Leninskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic

3 year(s) and 16 day(s)

collective detention orders; as the case progressed: failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

3,100

10466/21

06/02/2021

Aleksandr Andreyevich MERKULOV

1997Leonid Leonidovich Krikun

St Petersburg

06/07/2020 to

01/12/2020

Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court

4 month(s) and 26 day(s)

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, 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

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on several occasions from 02/09/2020 to 05/11/2020,

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against detention order of 07/07/2020 was considered on 10/09/2020.

9,750

17030/21

05/03/2021

Georgiy Vladimirovich LADARIYA

1979

15/01/2015

pending

Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction

More than

7 year(s) and 7 month(s)

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 extension order of 28/12/2020 by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court, was examined on 04/02/2021 by the Second Appellate Court.

5,500

20161/21

17/03/2021

Ruslan Rustamovich MAMATOV

1999Pavel Nikolayevich Zubitskiy

Moscow

09/08/2020

pending

Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 14 day(s)

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

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 06/10/2020, lodged on 09/10/2020, was examined on 02/11/2020 (24 days later). The applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 05/11/2020, lodged on 07/11/2020, was examined on 09/12/2020

(32 days later).

2,500

23482/21

06/04/2021

Dmitriy Grigoryevich ZARYUTO

1992

10/06/2019

pending

Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court

More than

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

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, colluding or absconding

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against detention order of 13/10/2020, Kalininskiy Court of St Petersburg, was considered on 18/11/2020,

St Petersburg City Court.

3,700

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