Скачать PDF

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 12.07.2018

Европейский суд по правам человека · № 39041/15 от 12.07.2018Действующий акт

Актуально на 04.11.2026.

Как цитировать: Постановление ЕСПЧ от 12.07.2018. 39041/15. 12.07.2018. https://bukva.ai/docs/postanovlenie-3904115

<Дело Синюшкин и другие (Sinyushkin and Others) против России> (жалоба № 39041/15 и др.) [англ.]

(Вместе со <Списком заявленных жалоб>)

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SINYUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 39041/15 and 5 others -
see appended list)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 12.VII.2018)

<*> This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sinyushkin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláèková , President,

Dmitry Dedov,

Jolien Schukking, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 June 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, Kud³a 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 application no. 39041/15, the applicant also submitted complaints which raised issues under Article 3 of 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018.

IV. Remaining complaints

12. In applications nos. 47454/17 and 49467/17 the applicants also complained under other Articles of the Convention.

13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications 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 the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 47454/17 and 49467/17 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 of the Convention 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 12 July 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Alena Poláèková
President

Liv Tigerstedt
Acting Deputy Registrar

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>
1. 39041/15
16/07/2015		 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Sinyushkin
07/01/1982		 Filatyev Vladislav Aleksandrovich
Kaliningrad		 23/01/2014 to
18/04/2016
2 year(s) and
2 month(s) and
27 day(s)		 Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad / Kaliningrad 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. Art. 3 — use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms. Placement in a metal cage during hearings before the 1st and the 2nd instance courts granting / extending pre-trial detention: before the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad on 25/01/2015, 19/03/2015, 18/05/2015, and 19/06/2015; before the Kaliningrad Regional Court, by means of video link, on 09/02/2015, 27/03/2015, 27/05/2015, 26/06/15, and on 03/07/2015. 9,750 

2.
33868/17
30/03/2017		
Dmitriy Robertovich Bikbulatov
17/09/1968		
Bogateyeva Alina Robertovna
Kazan		
03/04/2013 to
05/02/2018
4 year(s) and
10 month(s) and 3 day(s)		
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan / Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
- collective detention orders;
- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.		





3.
47454/17
27/06/2017		
Mikhail Vasilyevich Burashnikov
12/09/1992		
Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich
Astrakhan		
05/12/2015 to
27/02/2017
1 year(s) and
2 month(s) and
23 day(s)		
Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan / Astrakhan 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.

1,300




4.
49467/17
28/06/2017		
Aleksandr Gennadyevich Kurdyubov
25/08/1997		
Dereza Aleksey
Volgograd		
23/09/2016 to
24/05/2018
1 year(s) and
8 month(s) and
2 day(s)		
Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd / Volzhsk Town Court / Volgograd Regional Court
- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.		

1,900




5.
51883/17
13/07/2017		
Dmitriy Liveryevich Cherepanov
26/08/1969		
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk		
15/01/2016 to
09/04/2018
2 year(s) and
2 month(s) and
26 day(s)		
Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
- fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.		

2,300




6.
53181/17
14/07/2017		
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich Popov
13/11/1984		
Pekhteleva Viktoriya Viktorovna
Moscow		
14/03/2017
pending
More than
1 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 17 day(s)		
Basmannyy 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.

1,300









<1> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.