CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 juillet 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sBACDD5B6 { width:2.02%; 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 } .sB404EC87 { width:6.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF1780228 { width:8.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD679166 { width:8.44%; 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 } .sAD3403A4 { width:10.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8A349C12 { width:10.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC4C60A09 { width:21.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s229F7161 { width:20.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s29C8AD35 { width:12.58%; 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 } .s75744627 { height:60.9pt } .sA629EE1B { width:2.02%; 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 } .s4FF73136 { width:6.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD80C7CA5 { width:8.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDAD8F90 { width:8.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79D7B7CD { width:10.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s57BBE496 { width:10.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7BBA3D15 { width:21.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s542213A8 { width:20.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA3CA3A3 { width:12.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1829E089 { height:78.15pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF ASONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 11577/12 and 6 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   26 July 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Asonov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2018, 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 read as follows: “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.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS A.     Application no. 11577/12: complaints regarding conditions of detention 11.     The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant in application no. 11577/12 in respect of his complaint concerning poor conditions of detention under Article 3 of the Convention. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention, offered to pay the applicants 5,000 euros and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of case no. 11577/12 insofar as it concerned the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.” Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of application no. 11577/12 in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 (c)). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in that part (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike case no. 11577/12 out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention. B.     Applications nos. 11577/12 and 53500/17: other complaints under the well-established case-law 12.     In applications nos.   11577/12 and 53500/17 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 Zubkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 146-149, 7   November   2017, dealing with the lack of speedy review of the detention matters; and Idalov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 41858/08, 13 December 2016, concerning poor conditions of transport. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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.” 14.     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. 15.     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.     Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in application no. 11577/12 covering inadequate conditions of detention and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;   3.     Decides to strike application no. 11577/12 in the part covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and declares the remainder of that application, as well as the other applications listed in the appended table, admissible;   4.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   5.     Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   6.     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 26 July 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková 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 name Date of birth Representative name and location Period of detention Length of detention Courts which issued detention orders/examined appeals     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]     11577/12 12/01/2012 Yuriy Leonidovich Asonov 24/04/1959     10/12/2010 to 09/12/2011 1 year   Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok / Primorye Regional Court - 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lengthy examination of the detention order of 10/02/2011 (appeal on 24/02/2011); detention order of 08/06/2011 (appeal on 27/07/2011); detention order of 09/09/2011 (appeal on 19/10/2011) 1,500     30759/17 13/04/2017 Nikolay Vyacheslavovich Savelyev 01/12/1993 Stupin Yevgeniy Viktorovich Moscow 23/01/2017 pending More than 1   year and 4   months and 16 days   Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow / Moscow City Court - 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 reoffending, colliding 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   1,500     33534/17 21/03/2017 Aleksey Yevgenyevich Mishin 03/03/1991     18/09/2014 to 28/12/2017 3 years and 3 months and 11 days   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic -failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,400     34526/17 24/04/2017 Renat Andreyevich Sabitov 24/06/1983 Sokalskiy Boris Borisovich Moscow 29/04/2015 pending More than 3   years and 1   month and 10 days   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow / Moscow Regional Court -failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,200     38325/17 10/05/2017 Viktor Gennadyevich Frolov 03/06/1966     25/09/2014 to 30/03/2017 2 years and 6 months and 6 days   Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan / Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic -failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly in view of the length and stage of the criminal proceedings; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   2,700     53500/17 04/07/2017 Aleksandr Ivanovich Isayev 26/01/1963 Kuleba Aleksandr Petrovich St Petersburg 08/10/2015 to 27/09/2017 1 year and 11 months and 20 days   Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg / St Petersburg City Court / Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg - collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by a special van from the detention facility to the Investigative Committee on 16/01/2017; detention in that van for 12 hours without any possibility to leave for the building of the Investigative Committee: extremely limited space; inadequate temperature; no access to toilet; no food or drinking water 2,600     58157/17 01/08/2017 Rafik Arturovich Petrosyan 25/01/1986     01/08/2016 pending More than 1   year and 10   months and 7 days   Promyshlennyy District Court of the Stavropol Region / Stavropol Regional Court - 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 reoffending, colliding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   2,100   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.