Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DILMUKHAMETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 50711/19 and 9 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 Dilmukhametov 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.

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 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. 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.”

12. 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.

13. 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

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

(in euros) [1]

50711/19

25/09/2019

Ayrat Akhnafovich DILMUKHAMETOV

1966Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna

Moscow

14/03/2019

pending

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic

More than 3 year(s) and 23 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

3,100

51861/19

25/09/2019

Vadim Sergeyevich YERMOSHKIN

1975Kovalev Petr Yevgenyevich

Fryazino

15/08/2019

pending

Klin Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 22 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

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

2,800

54493/19

09/10/2019

Karapet Arshakovich GEVORKYAN

1952Shadrin Andrey Andreyevich

Irkutsk

27/02/2017 to

17/06/2019

Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Irkutsk Region, Irkutsk Regional Court

2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 22 day(s)

non-violent (white collar) crime; 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

2,400

54916/19

04/10/2019

Igor Alekseyevich GAYVORONSKIY

1971Shuravina Olga Vladislavovna

Krasnodar

08/11/2017

pending

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar

More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29 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

4,500

55029/19

30/09/2019

Yevgeniy Lvovich SOKOVIN

1987Yurunov Pavel Viktorovich

Moscow

19/06/2019 to

13/08/2020

Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 1 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

1,200

56358/19

08/10/2019

Dmitriy Albertovich KIREYEV

1961Pavitskiy Aleksey Anatolyevich

Novosibirsk

30/04/2019

pending

Novosibirsk Garrison Military Court; West-Siberian District Military Court

More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s)

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

3,000

56649/19

19/10/2019

Aleksandr Vladimirovich FET-OGLY

1995Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich

Krasnodar

31/01/2019

pending

Severskiy District Court of Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court

More than 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 6 day(s)

As the case progressed, 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, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

3,300

56657/19

19/10/2019

Kim Nikolayevich TERTITSA

1972Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich

Krasnodar

24/05/2019

pending

Oktyabraskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 13 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

3,100

56740/19

19/10/2019

Vladislav Aleksandrovich GLADYSHEV

1979Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich

Krasnodar

15/11/2018

pending

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court

More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 22 day(s)

use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed

3,500

56797/19

28/10/2019

Nail Maratovich SHAYKHUTDINOV

1967Ponomarev Askar Usmanovich

Kazan

26/10/2017

pending

Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 11 day(s)

use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

4,600

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

Menu

AFFAIRE DILMUKHAMETOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

AFFAIRE DILMUKHAMETOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

LEXI