11075/17;75897/17;58718/18;31472/19;47739/19;49350/19;49353/19;60670/19;64428/19;6369/20;6519/20;53875/20;13054/21;13489/21;14565/22;30558/22;39478/23

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHARINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 11075/17 and 16 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 February 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sharina and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,  Mateja Đurović, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025, 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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 and its Protocol. THE LAW 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. Jurisdiction 6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 8.  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). 9.  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. 10.  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. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  Some 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, §§ 135-149, ECHR 2008, regarding hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition; Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, §§ 72-83, 4 June 2015, relating to delayed review of conviction by a higher court; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); Ovakimyan v. Russia, no. 52796/08, § 40, 54, 57, 21 February 2017, regarding unlawful detention; Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 73-134, 9 May 2018, as to criminal conviction for inciting to hatred and extremist activity; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77‑90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the unreasonably long pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  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’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention 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]     11075/17 28/01/2017 Natalya Grigoryevna SHARINA   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg 29/10/2015 to 05/06/2017 Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 8 day(s)   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 re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 26/08/2016, appeal lodged on 07/09/2016, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 29/09/2016,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - criminal conviction under articles 160 and 282 of the Criminal Code for keeping books and CDs allegedly inciting hatred (the applicant was the director of a library); final decision: Moscow City Court, 24/04/2018, 4 years’ imprisonment suspended 6,000     75897/17 13/10/2017 Aleksandr Anatolyevich POTKIN   Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan 12/04/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Mechshanskiy District Court of Moscow, Domodedovo Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow City Court, Moscow Regional Court 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, 22/01/2018-13/04/2018, < 1 sq. m per inmate; applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient electric light,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow on 12/04/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 05/06/2018;   Detention order by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow on 24/04/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 05/06/2018 (both appeals considered on the same day);   Detention order by the Domodedovo Town Court of the Moscow Region, on 09/07/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow Regional Court on 23/08/2018,   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - 22/01/2018 - 13/04/2018, FKU SIZO-1,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - criminal conviction under articles 282, 282 and 282.1 of the Criminal Code for making some publications and participating in the activities inciting hatred between Russians and Kazakhs; final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/03/2018, imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months 6,000     58718/18 14/12/2018 Pavlo Igorovych GRYB   Zakrevska Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna Kyiv 25/08/2017 to 22/03/2019 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Severo-Kavkazskiy Circuit Millitary Court, Krasnodar Regional Court 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 26 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed     1,700     31472/19 26/05/2019 Vladimir Gennadyevich KOMARNITSKIY   Pleshkov Maksim Alekseyevich Moscow 26/06/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Second Western Circuit Military Court, Moscow City Court, Appellate Military Court 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 22 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders 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 re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - metal cage, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, 11/12/2019,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - criminal prosecution under articles 205.2, 212, 213, 280, 282 and 282.1 of the Criminal Code for participation in the activities of the Chernyy Blok political movement, in particular, for alleged calls to mass disorders, arrest and detention, proceedings possibly pending as of 16/09/2022,   Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - The applicant’s lawyer representing him before the ECHR was not allowed to visit him in remand prison, one of the grounds being that he did not exhaust all the domestic remedies, August 2019, complaints under article 125 of the CrPC not accepted for examination on 10/10/2019 and 08/11/2019, upheld on appeal on 11/12/2019 9,750     47739/19 06/09/2019 Aleksey Yuryevich DMITRIYEV   Zimin Aleksandr Vladimirovich St Petersburg 05/03/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Vasileostrovskoy District Court of St Peterburg, St Peterburg City Court 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 05/03/2019 from 4 p.m. to 9.50 p.m., raised on 07/09/2019; detention (criminal) for more than three hours without written record (see Ovakimyan v. Russia, no. 52796/08, § 40, 54, 57, 21 February 2017) 4,800     49350/19 06/09/2019 Ismail Makhmudovich NALGIYEV   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 08/05/2019 - 15/12/2021 Yessentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Stavropol Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 8 day(s) 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 re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia, 13/06/2019,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in an unauthorised manifestation in Magas against amendments to the law on referendums, Ingushetia, on 26/03/2019; final decision: Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia, 13/06/2019, fine of RUB 20,000   6,000     60670/19 15/11/2019 Akhmed Beslanovich NALGIYEV         Zubeyr Alaudinovich KHAMKHOYEV   Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna Moscow 20/04/2019 - 18/02/2020           23/04/2019 - 14/02/2020 Nalchick Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic 9 month(s) and 30 day(s)             9 month(s) and 23 day(s) 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 re-offending, colluding or absconding   1,000 (Mr Nalgiyev)               1,000 (Mr Khamkhoyev)     64428/19 06/12/2019 Abdulmumin Khabirovich GADZHIYEV   Shabanov Arsen Khidirnabiyevich Makhachkala 14/06/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala, Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 3 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - criminal conviction under articles 282.2, 205.1 and 205.5 of the Criminal Code for publishing an interview with a person helping Syrian refugees and allegedly engaged in Islamic State activities; last known decision: Southern Circuit Military Court of Rostov-on-Don, 12/09/2023 (unclear whether an appeal was lodged),   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala on 10/09/2019, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic on 07/10/2019 6,000     49353/19 06/09/2019   AND   6369/20 04/12/2019 Khasan Magomedovich KATSIYEV   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 23/04/2019 to 05/03/2020 Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Yessentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic 10 month(s) and 12 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders 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 re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia,13/06/2019,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - administrative conviction under article 20.2 para. 5 of the CAO for participating in manifestation against amendments to the law on referendum on 26/03/2019, Magas, Republic of Ingushetia, final decision: Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia,13/06/2019, fine of RUB 20,000,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - criminal conviction under article 318 of the Criminal Code on account of violence against a public official for participation in a meeting in Magas on 26/03/2019 against amendments to the law on referendum; final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 13/04/2020, imprisonment of 1 year and 9 months,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The first-instance court considered it necessary to keep the applicant in detention as a preventive measure pending the entry into force of the conviction even after the prison sentence imposed on him had expired; the time spent in pre-trial detention was taken into account, 1 day in pre-trial detention equal to 2 days in prison, he had to stay in detention until 13/04/2020 when the conviction had entered into force; the applicant’s appeal delayed the entry into force of the conviction; the realisation of the applicant’s right to appeal was at the price of his liberty (see Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, paras. 72-83, 4 June 2015) 6,000   6519/20 24/01/2020 Khasan Savarbekovich ZYAZIKOV   Kogan Vanessa Moscow 18/07/2019 - 17/01/2020   Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic 6 month(s) 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 re-offending, colluding or absconding failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - criminal prosecution under article 318 of the Criminal Code on account of violence against a public official for participation in a meeting in Magas on 26/03/2019 against amendments to the law on referendum and changing Ingushetia’s frontiers; proceedings possibly pending as of 16/09/2022 4,600   53875/20 17/11/2020 Vadim Kazbekovich CHELDIYEV   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 19/04/2020 to 19/07/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz, Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Supreme Court of the Osetia-Alania Republic, Rostov Regional Court 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)   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 re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Osetia-Alania Republic, 24/07/2020,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 13.15 § 9 of the CAO for publication in Telegram; final decision: Supreme Court of the Osetia-Alania Republic, 24/07/2020, fine of RUB 75,000,   Art. 11 and Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - criminal conviction under articles 207.1, 212, 280 and 318 of the Criminal Code on account of organisation of mass disorders for calling to participate and participating in an unauthorised meeting against authorities of the North Osetia-Alania Republic, 20/04/2020, Vladikavkaz; final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 20/07/2023, 10 years’ imprisonment 6,000   13054/21 16/02/2021 Ramis Akhmetovich CHIRKINOV   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 04/05/2020 to 19/07/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s)   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 re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - criminal conviction under article 212 of the Criminal Code on account of organisation of mass disorders for calling to participate and participating in an unauthorised meeting against authorities of the North Osetia-Alania Republic, 20/04/2020, Vladikavkaz; final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 20/07/2023, 8 years’ imprisonment 6,000   13489/21 17/02/2021 Arsen Tamerlanovich BESOLOV   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 12/05/2020 to 19/07/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 day(s)   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 re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - criminal conviction under article 212 of the Criminal Code on account of organisation of mass disorders for calling to participate and participating in an unauthorised meeting against authorities of North Osetia-Alania Republic, 20/04/2020, Vladikavkaz; final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 20/07/2023, imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months 6,000   14565/22 15/02/2022 Lyudmila Petrovna SHTEYN   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 02/02/2021 to 25/08/2021 Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 6 month(s) and 24 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 21/07/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 24/08/2021 1,500   30558/22 07/06/2022 Ruslan Faridpashayevich ABASOV   Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow 23/12/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022                 Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 8 month(s) and 25 day(s)   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 re-offending, colluding or absconding   1,000   39478/23 04/02/2023 Liliya Ayratovna CHANYSHEVA   Berman Daniil Borisovich Moscow 10/11/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kirovskiy District Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, Moscow City Court 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)   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 re-offending, colluding or absconding   1,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.