611/15;9585/15;30621/15;35376/15;39351/15;45035/15;5022/16

WyrokETPCz2017-05-04ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0504JUD000061115

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy nadmierna długość tymczasowego aresztowania skarżących naruszyła prawo do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie lub zwolnienia z aresztu z art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał, odwołując się do swojego ugruntowanego orzecznictwa dotyczącego art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji, w tym do spraw Kudła v. Polska, McKay v. Zjednoczone Królestwo oraz Dirdizov v. Rosja, stwierdził, że w niniejszej sprawie długość tymczasowego aresztowania skarżących była nadmierna. Trybunał nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które mogłyby skłonić go do odmiennego wniosku w kwestii dopuszczalności i zasadności skarg.
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, których lista znajduje się w załączonej tabeli, skarżyli się na nadmierną długość ich tymczasowego aresztowania. Okresy tymczasowego aresztowania wahały się od około 5 miesięcy do ponad 5 lat i 8 miesięcy.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: 1. Postanawia połączyć skargi. 2. Uznaje skargi za dopuszczalne. 3. Stwierdza, że skargi ujawniają naruszenie art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji w związku z nadmierną długością tymczasowego aresztowania. 4. Orzeka, że państwo pozwane ma zapłacić skarżącym, w terminie trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, które zostaną przeliczone na walutę państwa pozwanego według kursu obowiązującego w dniu zapłaty, wraz z odsetkami za zwłokę.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

THIRD SECTION           CASE OF SARBAKHTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 611/15 and 6 others - see appended list)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   4 May 2017           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.     In the case of Sarbakhtin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Luis López Guerra, President,  Dmitry Dedov,  Branko Lubarda, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 March 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. 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 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.  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, 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. 13.  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 applications admissible;   3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   4.  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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Karen Reid Luis López Guerra 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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     611/15 18/12/2014 Nikolay Anatolyevich Sarbakhtin 25/10/1983 Dmitriy Vladimirovich Agranovskiy Elektrostal 14/08/2014 to 16/01/2015   5 month(s) and 3 day(s)   1,500     9585/15 02/02/2015 Valeriy Fedorovich Andronov 20/02/1960     21/03/2012 pending   More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 12 day(s) 5,100     30621/15 05/06/2015 Sergey Aleksandrovich Blinkov 22/05/1990 Denis Sergeyevich Egle Krasnoyarsk 11/02/2013 to 18/05/2015 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 8 day(s)   2,400     35376/15 25/06/2015 Timofey Sergeyevich Puzanov 17/05/1985 Irina Yuryevna Dyachenko Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy 25/12/2014 to 13/08/2015   7 month(s) and 20 day(s)   1,000     39351/15 26/11/2015 Dmitriy Borisovich Melash 23/03/1981     28/03/2015 to 10/03/2016   11 month(s) and 12 day(s)   1,000     45035/15 27/08/2015 Denis Mikhaylovich Meleshnin 16/12/1986 Yekaterina Viktorovna Yefremova Moscow 30/05/2011 pending   More than 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 25 day(s) 6,400     5022/16 29/12/2015 Vitaliy Valentinovich Sychev 23/06/1970     24/10/2012 to 29/06/2016   3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s) 3,900   [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło