79494/17;1917/18;2266/18;15281/18;19326/18;29229/18;30804/18;36217/18;37551/18;43157/18

THIRD SECTION CASE OF BOROVTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 79494/17 and 9 others - see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 January 2020         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Borovtsov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Alena Poláčková, President,  Dmitry Dedov,  Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 December 2019, 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 excessive length of their pre-trial 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. 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 reads 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. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 1917/18, 2266/18, 15281/18 AND 19326/18 concerning conditions of detention or transport 11.  The applicants in applications nos. 1917/18, 2266/18, 15281/18 and 19326/18 also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about poor conditions of their detention or transport, as well as argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about those conditions. 12.  The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention and, for application no. 15281/18 also the conditions of transport. They further acknowledged that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy in violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of those complaints. They offered to pay the applicants the following amounts: Application no. Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant under the terms of the unilateral declaration (euros) 1917/18 15,000 2266/18 7,250 15281/18 8,725 19326/18 10,125   13.  The Government invited the Court to strike the applications, in these parts, out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. 14.  The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations. 15.  The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 16.  It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications in the part concerning the complaints covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. 17.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list as regards the complaints insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations, concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, and for application no. 15281/18, conditions of transport, and the related complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 18.  In applications nos. 15281/18 and 37551/18 the applicants 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 v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, as regards the lack of speedy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to the use of metal cages as a security arrangement in courtrooms; and Govorushko v. Russia, no. 42940/06, §§ 57-61, 25 October 2007, concerning an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 19.  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.” 20.  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), as well to the sums of the awards offered to some of the applicants by the Government by way of unilateral declaration (see paragraphs 11-17 above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table for the violations found. 21.  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, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike applications nos. 1917/18, 2266/18, 15281/18 and 19326/18 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and transport, insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations, and the complaints under Article 13 about the lack of effective remedies to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport; Declares the remainder of applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial 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 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 16 January 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková 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’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well‑established case law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[i]     79494/17 23/10/2017 Vasiliy Petrovich BOROVTSOV 19/11/1975     05/08/2017 to 29/08/2019 Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volzhsk Town Court of the Volgograd Region; Volgograd Regional Court 2 year(s) and 25 day(s)   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, colluding or absconding;   2,700     1917/18 13/12/2017 Vladimir Aleksandrovich PANTELEYEV 26/07/1980     26/03/2013 to 25/10/2018 St Petersburg City Court 5 year(s) and 7 month(s)   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, colluding 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;   5,500         2266/18 05/12/2017 Vadim Aleksandrovich KLYUYEV 22/04/1981 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg 15/09/2015 to 05/06/2017 Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 22 day(s)   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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;   2,500     15281/18 18/03/2018 Sergey Vitalyevich KLIMENKO 01/07/1990 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka 01/04/2017 to 04/10/2018 Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 4 day(s)   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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal decision of 25/10/2017 upholding the detention order of 25/09/2017,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in metal cages during appeal detention hearings on 11/09/2017 and 25/10/2017 4,000     19326/18 10/04/2018 Timur Ildarovich AYGENIN 10/01/1981 Prorekhina Irina Konstantinovna Moscow 19/09/2017 to 18/12/2018 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 3 month(s)   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, colluding 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; collective detention orders;       29229/18 13/06/2018 Dmitriy Sergeyevich ZAYTSEV 30/08/1978 Mazitov Marat Farukovich Moscow 13/10/2015 to 28/03/2019 Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 16 day(s)   collective detention orders; 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, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   4,700     30804/18 06/06/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOTOVSKIY 05/10/1988     18/05/2016 to 06/06/2019 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s) and 20 day(s)   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 when the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;   4,000     36217/18 12/07/2018 Valentin Vitalyevich POTUPOV 12/09/1992     26/01/2016 to 05/06/2019 Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court; Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s)   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, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   4,600     37551/18 26/07/2018 Andrey Gennadyevich PAVLOV 19/06/1980 Kuliyev Elnur Ilgarovich Samara 08/12/2017 to 07/02/2018   20/02/2018 to 08/06/2018 Samarsky District Court of Samara;   Samara Regional Court 2 month(s)     3 month(s) and 20 day(s)   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 Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - in relation to the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 1,700   43157/18 23/08/2018 Artem Georgiyevich ABABIY 25/07/1994     19/03/2017 to 22/08/2018 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan; Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s)   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, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;   2,100   [i].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.