I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in SEVDARI v. ALBANIA.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ZAKHAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 53570/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zakharov and Others 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 an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 31 October 2018. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms K.Y. Bezrukova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
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. 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, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of detention during transport and lack of effective remedies in this connection. 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
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
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]
53570/18
31/10/2018
(4 applicants)
Mikhail Konstantinovich ZAKHAROV
1978

Valentin Yegorovich BAZAYEV
1984

Anton Aleksandrovich DEVYATAYEV
1989

Anatoliy Viktorovich OSMACHKO
1984

Kseniya Yevgenyevna Bezrukova
Moskow
20/05/2015 to
09/09/2019
Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)

Use of stereotyped formula in collective detention orders to extend the applicants’ detention without having due regard to individual circumstances; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 21/05/2015 - 26/06/2018; holding cells, van; 0.5-1 sq. m. of personal space, no access to toilet, lack of fresh air, insufficient electric light, applicants transported on numerous occasions,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,

Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, 06/03/2018, Moscow City Court, 15/05/2018;

Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, 13/06/2018, Moscow City Court, 09/08/2018
5,400

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ZAKHAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 53570/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zakharov and Others 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 an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 31 October 2018. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms K.Y. Bezrukova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
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. 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, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of detention during transport and lack of effective remedies in this connection. 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
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
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]
53570/18
31/10/2018
(4 applicants)
Mikhail Konstantinovich ZAKHAROV
1978

Valentin Yegorovich BAZAYEV
1984

Anton Aleksandrovich DEVYATAYEV
1989

Anatoliy Viktorovich OSMACHKO
1984

Kseniya Yevgenyevna Bezrukova
Moskow
20/05/2015 to
09/09/2019
Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)

Use of stereotyped formula in collective detention orders to extend the applicants’ detention without having due regard to individual circumstances; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 21/05/2015 - 26/06/2018; holding cells, van; 0.5-1 sq. m. of personal space, no access to toilet, lack of fresh air, insufficient electric light, applicants transported on numerous occasions,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,

Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, 06/03/2018, Moscow City Court, 15/05/2018;

Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, 13/06/2018, Moscow City Court, 09/08/2018
5,400

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]
53570/18
31/10/2018
(4 applicants)
Mikhail Konstantinovich ZAKHAROV
1978

Valentin Yegorovich BAZAYEV
1984

Anton Aleksandrovich DEVYATAYEV
1989

Anatoliy Viktorovich OSMACHKO
1984

Kseniya Yevgenyevna Bezrukova
Moskow
20/05/2015 to
09/09/2019
Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)

Use of stereotyped formula in collective detention orders to extend the applicants’ detention without having due regard to individual circumstances; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 21/05/2015 - 26/06/2018; holding cells, van; 0.5-1 sq. m. of personal space, no access to toilet, lack of fresh air, insufficient electric light, applicants transported on numerous occasions,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,

Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, 06/03/2018, Moscow City Court, 15/05/2018;

Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, 13/06/2018, Moscow City Court, 09/08/2018
5,400
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.