32241/18;58149/19;59374/19;61257/19

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PAVLIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 32241/18 and 3 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 June 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Pavlikova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Branko Lubarda, President,  Armen Harutyunyan,  Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2024, 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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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 § 4 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 8.  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006). 9.  In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 219-48, 31 May 2011, and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007, 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 proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONs UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  The applicants also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about excessive length of their pre-trial detention (see the 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012). 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, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874/11, §§ 113-15, 18 February 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016 and Karaosmanoglu and Özden v. Turkey, no. 4807/08, §§ 89-91, 17 June 2014), 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 § 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 27 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda  Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) No. 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 per applicant (in euros)[1]     32241/18 02/07/2018 Anna Dmitriyevna PAVLIKOVA Okushko Tatyana Borisovna Moscow Dorogomilovskiy District Court, 11/05/2018, 27/05/2019   Moscow City Court, 26/07/2018, 26/07/2019 lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – around-the-clock house arrest from 16/08/2018 to 06/08/2020, Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court: collective orders, failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand, failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice. 2,600     58149/19 28/10/2019 Mariya Sergeyevna DUBOVIK Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, 11/03/2019, 27/05/2019 Moscow City Court,   28/05/2019, 26/07/2019 lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – remand/detention form 15/03/2018 to 06/08/2018; house arrest from 06/08/2018 to 06/08/2020, Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court: collective detention orders, failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   3,300     59374/19 12/11/2019   Ruslan Dmitriyevich KOSTYLENKOV   Petr Aleksandrovich KARAMZIN   Vyacheslav Vladislavovich KRYUKOV   Dmitriy Vladimirovich POLETAYEV Okushko Tatyana Borisovna Moscow Lyublinskiy District Court, 27/05/2019, 11/11/2019, 11/02/2020 Moscow City Court, 26/07/2019, 06/02/2020, 21/05/2020 lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Pre-trial detention from 16/03/2018 to 06/08/2020; detention authorised by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court: collective detention orders, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. 3,300     61257/19 22/11/2019 Mariya Sergeyevna DUBOVIK   Anna Dmitriyevna PAVLIKOVA Okushko Tatyana Borisovna Moscow Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow, 11/11/2019, 11/02/2020 Moscow City Court,   06/02/2020, 21/05/2020 lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   -   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.