51245/20;10933/21;20253/21

THIRD SECTION CASE OF VORONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 51245/20 and 2 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 September 2022       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Voronin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Darian Pavli, President,  Andreas Zünd,  Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022, 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. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.  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, which reads as follows: Article 5 § 4 “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 cases. 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 cases the applicants were deprived of an effective review of their pre-trial detention. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  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.” 12.  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 sums indicated in the appended table. 13.  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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention; 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 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli  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 First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     51245/20 11/01/2021 Sergey Valentinovich VORONIN Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 27/07/2020 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court,   10/09/2020 lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)     10933/21 26/01/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SNEGIREV Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 22/10/2020 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court,   10/12/2020 lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)     20253/21 14/03/2021 Yanis Maksimovich BIRCHAK Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 01/12/2020   Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 29/12/2020 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 25/12/2020   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 26/01/2021 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.