I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NURISLAMOV AND NAGORNYKH v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 30733/20 and 39817/20 –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nurislamov and Nagornykh v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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 excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no. 30733/20 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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. 11. In application no. 30733/20 the applicant submitted other complaints under Article 5 of 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, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012. 12. 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.”
13. 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. 14. 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,
(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 13 October 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 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year 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)[1]
30733/20
30/06/2020
Rinat Flaritovich NURISLAMOV
1982
Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova
Kazan
18/04/2017 to
13/04/2021
Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic; the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, the Firth Appeal Court
3 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 27 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 25/12/2019, appeal decision on 06/02/2020; detention order of 24/03/2020, appeal decision on 21/05/2020. 4,500
39817/20
18/08/2020
Nikita Aleksandrovich NAGORNYKH
1997
Oleg Moskvin
Tallinn
05/03/2019 to
19/08/2020
Troitskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 15 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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. 1,600

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NURISLAMOV AND NAGORNYKH v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 30733/20 and 39817/20 –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nurislamov and Nagornykh v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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 excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no. 30733/20 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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. 11. In application no. 30733/20 the applicant submitted other complaints under Article 5 of 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, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012. 12. 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.”
13. 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. 14. 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,
(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 13 October 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 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year 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)[1]
30733/20
30/06/2020
Rinat Flaritovich NURISLAMOV
1982
Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova
Kazan
18/04/2017 to
13/04/2021
Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic; the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, the Firth Appeal Court
3 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 27 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 25/12/2019, appeal decision on 06/02/2020; detention order of 24/03/2020, appeal decision on 21/05/2020. 4,500
39817/20
18/08/2020
Nikita Aleksandrovich NAGORNYKH
1997
Oleg Moskvin
Tallinn
05/03/2019 to
19/08/2020
Troitskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 15 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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. 1,600

No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year 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)[1]
30733/20
30/06/2020
Rinat Flaritovich NURISLAMOV
1982
Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova
Kazan
18/04/2017 to
13/04/2021
Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic; the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, the Firth Appeal Court
3 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 27 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 25/12/2019, appeal decision on 06/02/2020; detention order of 24/03/2020, appeal decision on 21/05/2020. 4,500
39817/20
18/08/2020
Nikita Aleksandrovich NAGORNYKH
1997
Oleg Moskvin
Tallinn
05/03/2019 to
19/08/2020
Troitskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 15 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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. 1,600
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.