Главная Поиск Карта сайта
Поиск по сайту
Авторизация
Логин:
Пароль:
Регистрация
Забыли свой пароль?
Легализация
petition.jpg

Соловьёв и др. против России





 К разделу "Полезные судебные решения" имеют доступ обладатели PRO-аккаунта.

Пополнения базы анонсируются в ветке Пополнение подборки полезных судебных решений, на обновления которой можно подписаться штатными инструментами форума.


THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SOLOVYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 68433/10, 55250/13 and 44979/14)

JUDGMENT

This version was rectified on 8 March 2017

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

STRASBOURG

24 November 2016

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Solovyev and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Helena Jäderblom, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,

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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

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 principally 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, including the Government’s argument pertaining to the application of the six-month rule in respect of application no. 68433/10, 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.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  In application no. 68433/10, the applicant submitted also a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012.

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In application no. 55250/13, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined the complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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.”

15.  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.

16.  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 complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 55250/13 inadmissible;

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;

4.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5.  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 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Hasan Bakırcı                                                              Helena Jäderblom
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 name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

Period of detention

Length of detention

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]

1.      

68433/10

30/10/2010

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich SOLOVYEV

17/06/1973

Mikhaylova Olga Olegovna

Moscow

21/02/2005 to

17/06/2010

 

5 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

28 day(s)

 

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention

7,000

2.      

55250/13

29/07/2013

Sergey Aleksandrovich SUVOROV

27/12/1984

Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna

Moscow

05/07/2012 to

02/10/2013

 

1 year(s) and

2 month(s) and

28 day(s)

 

 

1,300

3.      

44979/14

30/05/2014

Vitaliy Leonidovich ZHDANOV[2]

05/01/1968

 

 

06/12/2009 to

30/04/2014

 

4 year(s) and

4 month(s) and

25 day(s)

 

 

4,500





[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.


[2] Rectified on 8 March 2017: the text was "Mr Vitaliy Leonidivich ZHDANOV".

 




Возврат к списку



Наши  партнеры
Новое на форумах
19.06.2018 15:15:13
Помогите, пожалуйста, советом!
Просмотров: 98460
Ответов: 413
19.06.2018 11:37:34
Фальсификация
Просмотров: 78435
Ответов: 240
19.06.2018 09:00:12
Экспертиза
Просмотров: 126209
Ответов: 616
19.06.2018 08:59:36
Пополнение подборки полезных судебных решений
Просмотров: 25320
Ответов: 71
17.06.2018 09:35:17
ФСКН УБИТА, НО ДЕЛО ЕЁ ЖИВЁТ
Просмотров: 31117
Ответов: 142
15.06.2018 14:47:29
Законопроект об ускорении УДО
Просмотров: 15527
Ответов: 37
15.06.2018 08:46:36
Контрабанда
Просмотров: 80860
Ответов: 323
10.06.2018 22:39:23
Уголовное преследование эксперта Ольги Зелененой
Просмотров: 5117
Ответов: 50
06.06.2018 06:09:58
Законопроект о зачете времени, проведенном в СИЗО
Просмотров: 275939
Ответов: 310

Рекомендации