I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GORYUNKOV v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-02-13
  • Communication date: 2020-01-10
  • Application number(s): 40408/18
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 7, 7-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.654102
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 27 January 2020 The applicant, Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Goryunkov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in St Petersburg.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 October 2017 the investigative committee asked the police to run an inquiry on the applicant in connection with Ye.’s disappearance.
It was suspected that Ye., who was a minor at the time, had lived for some time in the applicant’s flat.
The police sent a summons to the applicant’s address asking him to appear for questioning.
The applicant did not comply.
On 20 October 2017 police officers A. and S. met the applicant at his place of work.
The police officers asked the applicant to show his ID.
The applicant refused to comply and tried to flee.
The police arrested the applicant, took him to the police station and instituted administrative proceedings against him on the charge of refusal to comply with a lawful police order.
On 22 October 2017 the applicant was released.
On 4 December 2017 the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a monetary fine in the amount of 700 Russian roubles (RUB)[1].
The court questioned the police officers who had arrested the applicant and one of the eye-witnesses to the applicant’s altercation with the police, and examined the video recording of the incident.
The applicant appealed.
On 8 February 2018 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 4 December 2017 on appeal.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention in the police custody was unlawful.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MARTYROSYAN v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 10838/24)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 February 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Martyrosyan v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 January 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 March 2024. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms K.O. Chuyeva, a lawyer practising in Odesa. 3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 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 cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), 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 applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Specific defects
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
10838/24
22/03/2024
Genrik Samvelovich MARTYROSYAN
1982

Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa
13/04/2021 to
25/09/2024
3 years and 5 months and 13 days

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
2,200
250

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MARTYROSYAN v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 10838/24)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 February 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Martyrosyan v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 January 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 March 2024. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms K.O. Chuyeva, a lawyer practising in Odesa. 3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 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 cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), 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 applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Specific defects
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
10838/24
22/03/2024
Genrik Samvelovich MARTYROSYAN
1982

Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa
13/04/2021 to
25/09/2024
3 years and 5 months and 13 days

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
2,200
250

Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Specific defects
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
10838/24
22/03/2024
Genrik Samvelovich MARTYROSYAN
1982

Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa
13/04/2021 to
25/09/2024
3 years and 5 months and 13 days

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
2,200
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.