CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 décembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF GORA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 30395/18)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 December 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gora v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 June 2018. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 5.     The applicant complained principally of the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. He relied on Article   5   §   4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” 6.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to review of pre-trial detention guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§   251-56, 4 December 2018, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   16483/12, §§ 128-31, 15 December 2016). 7.     In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154‑58, 22 May 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8.     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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant was deprived of an effective review of his pre-trial detention. 9.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     The applicant 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 Idalov , cited above, §§ 103-08, and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, related to conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this regard. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do 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. 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, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11   July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. 15.     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, Declares the complaints concerning the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention; 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); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 30395/18 09/06/2018 Aleksandr Viktorovich GORA 1981 Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg - detention orders of 25 January 2018, 21 February 2018, 25 May 2018 St Petersburg City Court, appeal decisions on 14 and 28 March, 11 July 2018, respectively lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport by van and detention in transit cells in courts’ premises on numerous occasions between 28/04/2017 and 28/03/2019, 0.3 sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,300     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.