THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KUVSHINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 36533/18 and 13 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 July 2022

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

In the case of Kuvshinov and Others v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 June 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 Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no. 61918/19 which was not accepted by the applicant. The Court notes that the unilateral declaration did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike that application out and will accordingly pursue its examination (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

7. 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.”

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, the Court 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.

12. In applications nos. 61918/19, 26512/20, 26950/20 and 45730/20, 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. Rus sia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning confinement of a defendant in a metal cage during the trial; Menesheva v. Russia , no. 59261/00, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2006‑III and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018, concerning unrecorded detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007, as regards absence of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, related to permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial and post-conviction facilities.

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 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 21 July 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]

36533/18

06/02/2019

Andrey Aleksandrovich KUVSHINOV

1971Kostyushev Vladimir Yuryevich

Moscow

14/05/2018 to

27/08/2020

Pskov Regional Court

2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 14 day(s)

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

2,400

61918/19

20/11/2019

Petr Nikolayevich KOROTKOV

1977Kostetskiy Denis Gennadiyevich

Moscow

15/07/2018 to

09/06/2020

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov,

Leninskiy District Court of Tambov,

Tambov Region Court

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage in several hearings during the criminal proceedings against the applicant

9,750

1395/20

14/12/2019

Sergey Aleksandrovich REDCHITS

1982Dyrin Denis Arkadyevich

St Petersburg

13/02/2018 to

19/02/2021

St Petersburg City Court

3 year(s) and 7 day(s)

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

3,100

9188/20

10/02/2020

Vladimir Borisovich ALEKSANDROV

1984Korchagina Mariya Andreyevna

Moscow

01/10/2019

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 14 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; collective detention orders

2,700

9197/20

11/02/2020

Dina Sergeyevna KIBETS

1983Smirnov Sergey Nikolayevich

Moscow

01/10/2019

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 14 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; collective detention orders

2,700

9314/20

10/02/2020

Tatyana Andreyevna DAVYDOVA

1987Leysle Denis Karlovich

Moscow

01/10/2019

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 14 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; collective detention orders

2,700

19836/20

19/03/2020

Sergey Aleksandrovich MANVELOV

1982Abramyan Vladimir Robertovich

Pyatigorsk

03/06/2019

pending

Yessentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region,

Stavropol Regional Court

More than 3 year(s)

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

3,100

26512/20

09/06/2020

Sergey Stanislavovich NOVIKOV

1982Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich

Podolsk

08/04/2020

pending

Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and 7 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

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unrecorded detention on 8 ‑ 9 April 2020 in the Tomilino police station of the Lyuberetskiy District ( Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018 ),

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Confinement in a metal cage in courtrooms of the Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region and the Moscow Regional Court on numerous occasions within the pending criminal proceedings

9,750

26950/20

01/07/2020

Raip Magomedovich ASHIKOV

1974Maralyan Anna

Strasbourg

31/03/2019 to

30/12/2020

Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala, Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic,

Third Appellate Court

1 year(s) and 9 month(s)

collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; as the case progressed; explaining the length of the detention by "public interests"; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on a number of occasions after 26 September 2019 it took the appeal court more than 22 days to examine the applicant’s appeal against those detention orders

2,300

27979/20

03/06/2020

Pavel Aleksandrovich KLENYSHEV

1984Nikiforova Yelena Mikhaylovna

Orel

08/11/2018

pending

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Orel,

Orel Regional Court

More than 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 7 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; "white collar crime" charges; 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

3,600

31661/20

13/07/2020

Igor Vladimirovich BOLOTIN

1982Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich

Moscow

06/08/2018 to

14/01/2020

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 9 day(s)

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; 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; fraud charges

1,600

31900/20

14/07/2020

Yuriy Alekseyevich YEPISHIN

1987Oblikov Yuriy Yuryevich

Moscow

15/05/2019 to

04/06/2020

Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic,

4th General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal

1 year(s) and 21 day(s)

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

1,100

37951/20

13/08/2020

Bagautdin Magomedovich MYAKIYEV

1965Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich

Stavropol

13/04/2019 to

20/02/2020

Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic

10 month(s) and 8 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

1,000

45730/20

14/10/2020

Maksim Aleksandrovich MALININ

1980Nikitin Gleb Alekseyevich

Moscow

19/03/2020

pending

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 27 day(s)

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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the hearings before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow,

Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - video surveillance in SIZO-7 Moscow since 30/03/2020 and pending, including in lavatory and shower rooms,

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The appeal against the detention order of 20/03/2020 was submitted on 23/03/2020 but was examined only on 15/04/2020; the appeal against the detention order of 18/05/2020 was submitted on 21/05/2020 but was examined only on 29/06/2020,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings,

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - Mityanin and Leonov v. Russia, no. 11436/06 and 22912/06, § 88, 7 May 2019.

9,750

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