Information Note on the Court’s case-law 194

March 2016

Zherebin v. Russia - 51445/09

Judgment 24.3.2016 [Section I]

Article 46

Article 46-2

Execution of judgment

Measures of a general character

Respondent State required to continue to adopt measures to address structural problem relating to excessive length of pre-trial detention

Facts – In 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a flagrant breach of public peace and order, committed in concert by an organised group. He was remanded in custody during the investigation and subsequent trial for more than seven months. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

Law – Art icle 5 § 3: By failing to consider alternative “preventive measures”, by relying essentially on the seriousness of the charges and by shifting the burden of proof to the applicant, the authorities had extended the applicant’s detention on grounds which, al though “relevant”, could not be regarded as “sufficient” to justify its duration.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 46: The Court had delivered more than 110 judgments against Russia in which a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excess ive length of detention had been found and approximately 700 applications raising a similar issue were pending before it. This issue had already been considered by the Committee of Ministers . Furthermore, accord ing to official data the domestic courts granted approximately 90% of all initial applications for remand in custody lodged by prosecuting authorities and more than 93% of requests for extension of pre-trial detention. These findings demonstrated that the violation of the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 3 was neither prompted by an isolated incident, nor attributable to a particular turn of events, but originated from a structural problem consisting of a practice that was incompatible with the Conventio n.

The Court welcomed the steps already taken by Russia to remedy the problems related to pre-trial detention. However, in view of the extent of the systemic problem at issue, the respondent State had a legal obligation to select, subject to supervision by th e Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects. In this connection, the Court str essed the importance of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings and reiterated the recent recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly summed up in Resolution no. 2077 (2015) adopted on 1 October 2015, as regards the measures aimed at reducing pre-trial detention.

Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes