Published on 28 March 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 30578/16 Vladimir SACHKOV against Armenia and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 March 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The present case concerns the detention of the first applicant (Mr V. Sachkov), a Russian national, as well as the absence of long-stay visits in the remand prison and a travel ban imposed on him. In a separate application, the first applicant’s wife (Ms Azyoma) and children (M. Sachkov, A. Sachkova and A. Sachkov), who are also Russian nationals and reside in Russia, complain about his visiting rights in the remand prison.

Applications nos. 30578/16 and 33499/16: On 4 December 2013 criminal proceedings were instituted against the first applicant who was suspected of a number of economic and cybercrimes and was also declared a fugitive because of having left Armenia about a month earlier. On 28 November 2014 the applicant was extradited from Belarus and placed in pre-trial detention by a court decision of 1 December 2014 which referred to the nature and the gravity of the imputed offences, including the penalty risked by the applicant, and the fact that he had gone into hiding. It appears that his detention was periodically extended on similar grounds until 29 November 2015. In his appeal against one such decision taken on 29 June 2015 the applicant unsuccessfully argued that he had left Armenia before the institution of the criminal case and had not even been aware of those proceedings.

On 27 November 2015 the trial court decided to leave the applicant’s detention unchanged, finding that, if at large, the applicant would put pressure on witnesses or could commit new offences. On 11 December 2015 and 23 November 2016 the trial court took two other procedural decisions, in which it also decided to leave the applicant’s detention unchanged. On 1 March and 29 August 2016 the applicant unsuccessfully sought to be released.

On 27 January 2017 he lodged another application for release, which the trial court refused to entertain on 5 April 2017 as being substantially the same as his application of 29 August 2016.

On 18 August 2017 the applicant was released on bail.

Applications nos. 8867/18 and 12317/18: In 2016 and 2017 the first applicant requested the head of Nubarashen Remand Prison to allow him long-stay visits by his family of four – wife and three children – who could not afford an expensive journey from Russia only for a short visit of a couple of hours. The applicant stressed that he had not seen his family members since his detention in 2014 and had never met his youngest son, born after his arrest. On 13 July 2016 and 16 June 2017 the head of Nubarashen Remand Prison dismissed his requests since, under domestic law, remand prisoners were allowed only up to three-hour-long short visits at least twice per month, whereas long-visits were reserved only for convicted persons.

It appears that the first applicant did not have any short or long-stay visits during his detention.

Application no. 52961/18

On 27 December 2017 the first applicant was prevented from traveling to Russia to visit his family because of a travel ban imposed on him by the prosecutor since under Armenian law, if a preventive measure was imposed on a foreigner, his or her leaving Armenia should be prohibited unless authorised in writing by the investigating authority. In April and October 2018 the applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the General Prosecutor and the court to lift the travel ban; two such requests were allegedly not examined, while a third one was allegedly refused orally by the trial court. It appears, as a result, he was not able to attend his uncle’s funeral in Belarus or visit his underage child in Russia who had been injured in a traffic accident.

On 5 June 2019 the Criminal Court of Appeal allowed the applicant to travel to Russia between court hearings. It appears that up until then the applicant’s passport had been held by the authorities.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the first applicant’s detention authorised by the decisions of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 27 November and 11 December 2015 and 23 November 2016 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia , no. 13610/12, §§ 45-50, 15 June 2021)?

2. Was the length of the first applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did the courts provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s continued detention (see Muradkhanyan v. Armenia , no. 12895/06, §§ 80 ‑ 82, 5 June 2012, and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia , no. 629/11, §§ 48 et seq., 20 October 2016)?

3. Was the refusal of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 5 April 2017 to examine the first applicant’s application for release in violation of his right to have the lawfulness of his detention examined at reasonable intervals as guaranteed under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Bezicheri v. Italy , 25 October 1989, § 21, Series A no. 164; Jurjevs v. Latvia , no. 70923/01, § 57, 15 June 2006; and, mutatis mutandis , Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 30044/10, §§ 84-89, 7 July 2020)?

4. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, due to the impossibility to obtain long-stay visits during the first applicant’s detention at Nubarashen Remand Prison (see Moiseyev v. Russia , no. 62936/00, § 246, 9 October 2008; Resin v. Russia , no. 9348/14, §§ 40-41, 18 December 2018; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2) , nos. 42757/07 and 51111/07, §§ 595-598, 14 January 2020)?

5. Has there been a violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, as a result of the travel ban imposed on him ( see Kotiy v. Ukraine , no. 28718/09, §§ 62 ‑ 75, 5 March 2015; Parmak and Bakır v. Turkey , nos. 22429/07 and 25195/07, §§ 88-94, 3 December 2019; and, mutatis mutandis , Pfeifer v. Bulgaria , no. 24733/04, §§ 56-57, 17 February 2011)?

The Government are requested to provide copies of all the decisions taken by the prosecuting and judicial authorities, as well as the applicant’s appeals, concerning (a) the temporary restriction of the applicant’s right to leave Armenia, and (b) the seizure of his passport.

No.

Application no.

Case name

Applicant Nationality

Represented by

1.

30578/16

Sachkov v. Armenia

Vladimir SACHKOV Russian

Narine RSHTUNI

2.

33499/16

Sachkov v. Armenia

Vladimir SACHKOV Russian

Narine RSHTUNI

3.

8867/18

Sachkov v. Armenia

Vladimir SACHKOV Russian

4.

12317/18

Azyoma and Others v. Armenia

Yekaterina AZYOMA Russian Mikhail SACHKOV Russian Anna SACHKOVA Russian Aleksey SACHKOV Russian

5.

52961/18

Sachkov v. Armenia

Vladimir SACHKOV Russian