CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s30B3B394 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:left } .sC3DB750F { width:189.19pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s74F96529 { width:204.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD1DF4DFD { height:44pt } .sEF9243AB { width:3.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA160E30D { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s936538EA { width:14.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s626E04CE { width:15.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sC9BDEB2D { width:10.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s39FE9329 { width:13.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s63C5EE82 { width:20.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBD8DB1C0 { width:12.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s626D730A { width:3.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAF3B7830 { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFB8DA417 { width:14.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5D6038D { width:15.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB315D5A3 { width:10.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE6559C9 { width:13.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF87890 { width:20.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23F9FC52 { width:12.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s18E16575 { height:33.85pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }         THIRD SECTION       CASE OF DEVYATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 24967/06, 13708/08, 43584/11, 2906/14, 68255/14, 72879/14 and 77966/14 )                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   20 December 2016       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Devyatov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 December 2016, 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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 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 I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 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, Kudła 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. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In applications nos.   24967/06, 13708/08 and 72879/14 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012 and Nakhmanovich v. Russia , no. 55669/00, 2 March 2006. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINT 12.     In application no. 68255/14, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, having argued that his prosecution was politically motivated. 13.     The Court considers that in the light of all the material in its possession this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     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. 16.     The Court 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, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible   and the remainder of the application no. 68255/14 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     Holds (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 20 December 2016, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court. Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom 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 name Date of birth   Representative name and location Period of detention Length of detention Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     24967/06 09/04/2006 Sergey Gennadyevich DEVYATOV 23/07/1952     18/03/2002 to 19/02/2004     27/04/2004 to 11/05/2007   1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)     3 year(s) and 15 day(s)   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of appeals against the detentions orders of 07/08/2006 and 11/04/2006,   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings 6,500     13708/08 07/02/2008 Aleksey Vladimirovich ZAKURDAYEV 10/12/1974 Semin Aleksandr Vladimirovich Izhevsk 02/05/2007 to 25/09/2008   1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – Delayed review of the appeal against the detention order of 11/09/2008 ( only considered on 08/12/2008) 2,000     43584/11 15/06/2011 Sergey Valeryevich KORNEV 26/01/1972 Yesakov Vsevolod Vyacheslavovich St Petersburg 13/05/2010 to 14/09/2011   1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s)     1,500     2906/14 16/12/2013 Viktor Valeryevich SELIVANOV 22/08/1975 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog 22/09/2013 to 31/12/2013   3 month(s) and 10 day(s)     1,000     68255/14 15/10/2014 Daniil Ilyich KONSTANTINOV 05/02/1984 Dobreva Natasha Ognyanova Sofia 22/03/2012 to 16/10/2014   2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 25 day(s)     2,700     72879/14 06/11/2014 Oleg Valeryevich DROZDOV 26/12/1973 Lunev Aleksey Vladimirovich Moscow 22/10/2013 pending   More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26 day(s)   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the appeal against the detention order of 01/07/2014 (considered on 30/07/2014) 3,900     77966/14 03/12/2014 Olesya Igorevna KOVACH 22/07/1987 Bezverkhiy Yuriy Leonidovich Tula 15/11/2013 pending   More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 3 day(s)     3,000     [1]     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.