THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BAZHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 15009/19 and 8 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 June 2022

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

In the case of Bazhanov 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 19 May 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 excessive.

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

11. In applications nos. 15009/19, 33443/20, 35465/20, 36370/20 and 37125/20, 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 Idalov v. Russia ([GC], no. 5825/03, §§ 154 ‑ 58, 161-65, 22 May 2012).

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, 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.

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 9 June 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]

15009/19

28/02/2019

Anton Yevgenyevich BAZHANOV

1974Karpinskaya Kseniya Sergeyevna

Moscow

18/09/2018 to

17/09/2019

Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

1 year(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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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 16/11/2018 lodged on 19/11/2018 was examined on 14/01/2019

1,300

29199/20

27/05/2020

Aleksandr Ramizovich SHUKYUROV

1977Malikov Anton Andreyevich

Moscow

31/10/2017

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

More than

4 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

6 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;

4,600

33443/20

15/07/2020

Yuriy Pavlovich ARTOKHIN

1986Golub Olga Viktorovna

Suzemka

16/08/2019 to

23/06/2021

Tushinskiy District Court, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court

1 year(s) and

10 month(s) and

8 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

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - - the appeal against the detention order of 10/12/2019 was examined on 15/01/2020;

- the appeal against the detention order of 12/05/2020 was examined on 15/06/2020.

- the appeal against the detention order of 14/07/2020 (lodged on 17/07/2020) was examined on 10/08/2020;

- the appeal against the detention order of 08/09/2020 (lodged on 09/09/2020) was examined on 19/10/2020.

2,700

33652/20

13/07/2020

Sergey Olegovich VLASOV

1993Shogin Mikhail Igorevich

Petrozavodsk

21/12/2019

pending

Petrozavodsk Town Court; Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic

More than

2 year(s) and

3 month(s) and 16 day(s)

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

2,400

34105/20

20/07/2020

Konstantin Vladimirovich VERKHOTUROV

1998Belokon Aleksey Valeryevich

Georgiyevsk

05/08/2018

pending

Promyshleniy District Court of Stavropol, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol

More than

3 year(s) and

8 month(s) and 1 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;

3,900

35465/20

26/07/2020

Gayane Arturovna ZAYNABUTDINOVA

1988Samorukova Anastasiya Orestovna

Moscow

20/12/2019

pending

Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than

2 year(s) and

3 month(s) and 17 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

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention orders of Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow, 20/12/2019 and 18/02/2020 examined by the Moscow City Court on 27/01/2020 and 11/03/2020, respectively

3,100

36370/20

02/08/2020

Medina Khalidovna YAKUBOVA

1995Golub Olga Viktorovna

Suzemka

06/08/2019 to

22/07/2020

Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

11 month(s) and 17 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 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention orders of 26/12/2019, 04/02/2020, 31/03/2020 and 26/05/2020 by the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow were only examined on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 05/02/2020, 02/03/2020 29/04/2020 and 29/06/2020, respectively,

Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - the applicant was not brought to the court hearing on 31/03/2020 in which the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow determined the issue of the further extension of her detention. The court decided that the applicant’s presence could not be ensured in view of the sanitary crisis in Russia prompted by the dissemination of the COVID infection. The court did not attempt to organise the video conference with the applicant

1,300

37054/20

21/07/2020

Aleksandr Anatolyevich SIZOV

1980Abramov Pavel Arkadyevich

Rostov-on-Don

02/09/2019

pending

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov; Rostov Regional Court

More than

2 year(s) and

7 month(s) and 4 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime

2,800

37125/20

04/08/2020

Viktor Nikolayevich POLOVNIKOV

1963Dzhabirov Asad Sadykhovich

Moscow

16/01/2020

pending

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

More than

2 year(s) and

2 month(s) and 21 day(s)

use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;

"white collar crime" charges (bribe); failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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 - Decisions of the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic, delivered on 17/01/2020; 14/02/2020 and 16/04/2020 were upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 12/02/2020; 10/03/2020 and 21/05/2020

3,000

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