I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in PEYET v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2020-01-16
- Communication date: 2013-04-03
- Application number(s): 51122/07
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-3
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.871999
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Voldemarovich Peyet, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Tver.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 5 July 2006 the applicant was arrested on the suspicion of drug trafficking in Torzhok in the Tver Region and placed in the temporary detention ward (the IVS) in Torzhok.
On the same date, 5 July 2006, the Torzhok department of the federal counter-narcotics service initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant on the suspicion of trafficking of extremely large quantities of drugs under Article 228 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code.
On 6 July 2006 the Torzhok Town Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand without providing time limits for the detention.
In its decision the court referred to the gravity of charges against the applicant, the risk of absconding and exercising pressure on the witnesses.
On 14 July 2006 the applicant was transferred from the IVS to the remand prison IZ-69/1 in Tver where he remained until 30 July 2007.
B.
The applicant’s detention on remand On 5 September 2006 the Zavolzhskiy District Court in Tver (the District Court) extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 12 November 2006.
The court’s decision was delivered simultaneously in respect of the applicant and of his co-accused Ms O.P.
The court reasoned as follows: “... from the documents submitted it follows that each of them, the applicant and Ms O.P., are charged with the commission of a serious crime implying a custodial sentence.
In addition, Ms O.P.
is suspected of the commission of a particularly serious crime.
Both of them have criminal tendencies and represent danger for the society as persons.
In connection with this, the court believes that if at liberty, they could abscond, pressurise the witnesses, continue the criminal activity and hinder the investigation by other means.
Therefore, the length of their detention on remand should be extended.
In the court’s view, there are no reasons to change the restraining measure for a lenient one.
In addition, the investigative authorities yet to take a large volume of investigating steps ...” The applicant appealed the extension order and requested to be released pending investigation and trial.
In particular, he stated that he had permanent place of residence and permanent job, that he was married with two kids and that he did not have a criminal record.
On 28 September 2006 the Tver Regional Court (the Regional Court) upheld the extension order.
On 8 November 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 5 January 2007 referring to same reasons as the ones given in the initial decision of 6 July 2006.
The applicant appealed the extension order and requested to be released stating that the investigation had failed to substantiate the reasons for his continued detention.
In particular, there were no grounds to assume that he would re-offend or abscond.
He reiterated that he had permanent job and place of residence, that he was married with two children and that the state of his health was deteriorating.
On 30 January 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 8 November 2006.
On 28 December 2006 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006.
The time limit for the detention was set as 5 March 2007.
The applicant appealed the order and requested to be released.
In particular, he stressed that the state of his health was deteriorating and that the information concerning his personality demonstrated that the restraining measure in respect of him could be changed for a more lenient one.
On 23 January 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 28 December 2006.
On 2 March 2007 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006 and added that the applicant’s arguments concerning the deterioration of his health were unsubstantiated.
The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 April 2007.
During the hearing the applicant requested to be released.
He pointed out that the investigation failed to substantiate the allegations that he would re‐offend and stressed that the extension of his detention was based essentially on the gravity of charges against him.
He again referred to the state of his health and the fact that he had a wife and two minor children to support, permanent job and residence.
It is unclear whether the applicant appealed the extension order of 2 March 2007.
On 30 March 2007 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006.
The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 May 2007.
The applicant appealed the extension order and requested to be released.
He pointed out that the investigation failed to substantiate its allegations that he would re-offend and that the extension of his detention was based on the gravity of charges against him.
On 26 April 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 30 March 2007.
On 26 April 2007 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006.
The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 June 2007.
The applicant appealed the order and requested to be released stating that the extension was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that he had a family to support, permanent job and residence and that his health was deteriorating.
On 17 May 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 26 April 2007.
On 30 May 2007 the District Court held the directions hearing of the criminal case against the applicant.
During the hearing the court decided to extend his detention on remand stating that “the reasons for the continuation of the detention on remand remain the same” and that “the length of the applicant’s detention on remand should not serve as the basis for his release pending trial”.
The applicant’s detention on remand was extended until 5 July 2007.
During the hearing the applicant requested to be released referring to the same reasons as the one provided in his previous requests for release.
It is unclear whether the applicant appealed the extension order of 30 May 2007.
From the documents submitted it follows that between 5 and 24 July 2007 the applicant’s detention was not authorised by court order.
On 24 July 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006.
The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 August 2007.
During the hearing the court criticised the investigative authorities for lodging the request for the extension of the applicant’s detention belatedly.
From the documents submitted it follows that on 30 July 2007 the applicant was released pending trial.
C. Conditions of the applicant’s detention on remand Between 14 July 2006 and 30 July 2007 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-69/1 in Tver.
According to the applicant’s submission, each cell in which he was detained was overcrowded.
On average, a cell measuring about 21 sq.
meter contained six bank beds and housed ten inmates.
The toilet pan was located in proximity from the dining table and was separated only by one metre tall partition; the ventilation and lighting did not work properly.
The inmates were allowed to take one-hour walk per day.
The quality of food was poor.
The cells were not equipped with radios and no use the inmates’ radios was allowed.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of conditions of his detention in the temporary detention ward in Torzhok and in remand prison IZ-69/1 in Tver.
Under the same heading he complains of ill-treatment by the police on the date of his arrest.
Under Article 5 § 1 he alleges that his detention on remand was unlawful and, in particular, that between 5 and 24 July 2007 it was not based on a court order.
Under Article 5 § 2 he alleges that he was not promptly informed of the charges against him; under Article 5 § 3 he alleges that his detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his requests for review of the detention were not speedily examined by domestic courts.
Under Article 6 § 1 he complains of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and their length.
Under Article 6 § 3 (a) he complains that he was not informed of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him and Article 6 § 3 (c) that he could not defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing.
Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the tapping by the authorities of his telephone conversations and the disclosure of their contents during the trial violated his right to private life.
Finally, the applicant also invokes Articles 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
Judgment
FOURTH SECTIONCASE OF KOVÁCS AND RAGÁLY v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 73341/14 and 9550/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kovács and Ragály v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,Georges Ravarani,Jolien Schukking, 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 Hungary 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 Hungarian 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. 73341/14, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 4 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 Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014, 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. 73341/14, the applicant submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 5 § 4 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, among many authorities, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016. 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, Gál, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 14. 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,
(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 TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
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
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]
73341/14
14/11/2014
István KOVÁCS
24/03/1951
Szilvási Ágnes
Debrecen
05/02/2014 to
19/01/2015
11 month(s) and 15 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - On prolongation of detention, the applicant could not always access the relevant documents in good time and the reasoning was insufficiently individualised. 1,700
9550/19
07/02/2019
Zoltán RAGÁLY
31/10/1959
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
27/01/2017 to
07/08/2018
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)
2,200
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s 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]
73341/14
14/11/2014
István KOVÁCS
24/03/1951
Szilvási Ágnes
Debrecen
05/02/2014 to
19/01/2015
11 month(s) and 15 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - On prolongation of detention, the applicant could not always access the relevant documents in good time and the reasoning was insufficiently individualised. 1,700
9550/19
07/02/2019
Zoltán RAGÁLY
31/10/1959
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
27/01/2017 to
07/08/2018
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)
2,200
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.