I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in KAMENJAŠEVIĆ v. CROATIA.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF NAUMKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 44204/05 and 2 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 June 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Naumkin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,Dmitry Dedov,Jolien Schukking, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2018,
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 criminal proceedings. They 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 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‐II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‐VII). 8. In the leading case of Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, 2 March 2006, 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, as well as the Government’s objection in the application no. 44204/05 pertaining to the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility (see, for instance, Golovkin v. Russia, no. 16595/02, § 35, 3 April 2008, dealing with the lack of remedies in Russia, at the time, to complain about the excessive length of criminal proceedings) and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion and considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Kulida v. Russia, no. 44049/09, 17 June 2014; Dimov v. Russia, no. 7427/06, 23 September 2014; and Skrylev and Others v. Russia, no. 15754/06, 15 April 2014), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15. 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 criminal proceedings admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;

4. 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 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv TigerstedtAlena PoláčkováActing Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth

Representative name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
44204/05
14/11/2005
Sergey Sergeyevich Naumkin
03/12/1979
Karsakova Irina Vasilyevna
Ussuriysk
09/04/2001

12/02/2008

03/03/2009

14/08/2007

27/05/2008

07/05/2009

6 years and 4 months and 6 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

3 months and 16 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

2 months and 5 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,500
31448/08
14/04/2008
Vyacheslav Anatolyevich Pogonin
04/02/1973
Rozhkov Dmitriy Viktorovich
Krasnoyarsk
15/12/2003

15/11/2007

3 years and 11 months and 1 day
2 levels of jurisdiction

1,300
42289/08
15/05/2008
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Timofeyev
27/08/1976
Tuledov Oleg Aleksandrovich
Krasnoyarsk
04/07/2003

15/11/2007

4 years and 4 months and 12 days
2 levels of jurisdiction

1,300

No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth

Representative name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
44204/05
14/11/2005
Sergey Sergeyevich Naumkin
03/12/1979
Karsakova Irina Vasilyevna
Ussuriysk
09/04/2001

12/02/2008

03/03/2009

14/08/2007

27/05/2008

07/05/2009

6 years and 4 months and 6 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

3 months and 16 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

2 months and 5 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,500
31448/08
14/04/2008
Vyacheslav Anatolyevich Pogonin
04/02/1973
Rozhkov Dmitriy Viktorovich
Krasnoyarsk
15/12/2003

15/11/2007

3 years and 11 months and 1 day
2 levels of jurisdiction

1,300
42289/08
15/05/2008
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Timofeyev
27/08/1976
Tuledov Oleg Aleksandrovich
Krasnoyarsk
04/07/2003

15/11/2007

4 years and 4 months and 12 days
2 levels of jurisdiction

1,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.