32220/19

THIRD SECTION CASE OF KHUTIYEV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32220/19)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 15 December 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khutiyev 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 2 June 2019. 2.  The applicant was represented by Ms O.V. Golub, a lawyer practising in Suzemka, Bryansk Region. 3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  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 6.  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.” 7.  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). 8.  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. 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 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. 10.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  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, as regards inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this connection. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  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.” 13.  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. 14.  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 application admissible; Holds that this application discloses 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   Representative’s name and location 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 (in euros)[1] 32220/19 02/06/2019 Khuseyn Vakhitovich KHUTIYEV Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow 13/11/2018 14/12/2018 17/01/2019 15/03/2019     Moscow City Court   12/12/2018 21/01/2019 11/02/2019 15/04/2019     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 - van (IZ-77/4 - Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow), multiple journeys from 18/05/2018 to 22/04/2019, overcrowding, insufficient number of seats;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport.   1,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.