29584/05;38432/11;60229/11;70271/12;15174/13;9210/15;43735/16;9495/17;14039/17

THIRD SECTION             CASE OF LEVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 29584/05 and 8 others - see appended list)                         JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   11 January 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Levin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Luis López Guerra, President,  Dmitry Dedov,  Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2017, 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: 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 application no. 43735/16, the applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the lack of a speedy review of his detention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012. IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  In application no. 29584/05, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.  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 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 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 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 no. 29584/05 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 complaint raised in application no. 43735/16 as another complaint under well-established case-law (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.   6.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Liv Tigerstedt Luis López Guerra 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 grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     29584/05 06/07/2005 Viktor Anatolyevich Levin 16/09/1956 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg 30/10/2003 to 21/10/2005 1 year and 11 months and 22 days   Trusovskoy District Court of the Astrakhan Region/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 re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,000     38432/11 10/06/2011 Denis Alekseyevich Vorotyntsev 23/01/1975 Shakhnazarov Norayr Georgiyevich Lyubertsy 18/03/2010 to 19/10/2012 2 years and 7 months and 2 days   Tverskoy 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, with a mere link to the behavior of the alleged accomplices; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, 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.   2,800     60229/11 15/09/2011 Yuriy Valentinovich Shorchev 09/05/1972 Agranovskiy Dmitriy Vladimirovich Elektrostal 03/04/2009 to 25/11/2013 4 years and 7 months and 23 days   Leninskiy District Court of Saransk/Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk/Supreme Court of the Mordoviya Republic/Supreme Court of the Russian Federation - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.     4,800     70271/12 24/10/2012 Denis Yuryevich Basargin 20/04/1980 Afanasyeva Yelena Vadimovna Yekaterinburg 03/02/2012 to 25/12/2013 1 year and 10 months and 23 days   Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen/Tyumen Regional Court - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts (non-violent crime (car theft) – gravity of the crime cited; - 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, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,100     15174/13 17/12/2012 Yakov Trifonovich Ivashov 31/01/1949 Khaliullin Robert Nurgaleyevich Kazan 12/07/2011 to 03/07/2014 2 years and 11 months and 22 days   Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan/Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic - 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   3,000     9210/15 02/02/2015 Mikhail Yevgenyevich Kopalov 18/05/1993     26/05/2011 to 08/08/2016 5 years and 2 months and 14 days   Novosavinskiy District Court of Kazan/Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic - collective detention orders; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.     5,300     43735/16 22/07/2016 Konstantin Sergeyevich Yevtikheyev 10/04/1984 Meleshko Aleksandr Valeryevich St Petersburg 09/09/2014 pending More than 3 years and 3 months Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg/St Petersburg City Court - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts (non-violent crime – gravity of the crime was cited 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, 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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decision of 04/03/2016 - appeal decision of 30/03/2016; decision of 07/06/2016 - appeal decision of 06/07/2016.   4,300     9495/17 19/01/2017 Aleksandr Vitalyevich Protopopov 14/01/1961 Vasilyev Aleksey Anatolyevich Izhevsk 13/01/2016 to 17/05/2017 1 year and 4 months and 5 days   Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic/Supreme Court of the Komi Republic - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; - failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   1,500     14039/17 07/02/2017 Aleksey Aleksandrovich Byakov 13/05/1985     11/08/2016 to 08/05/2017     02/06/2017 to 28/06/2017 More than 9 months Predgornyy 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 re-offending, colliding or absconding; - failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   1,000     [1]  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.