ARDABYEVSKIY A FARADZHEVA proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ARDABYEVSKIY AND FARADZHEVA v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 73364/17 and 49116/20 – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ardabyevskiy and Faradzheva 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. 49116/20 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. LOCUS STANDI OF MrS ARDAByEVSKAYA (APPLICATION NO. 73364/17)

6. The Court takes note of the death of Mr Ardabyevskiy and of the wish of his wife, Mrs Ardabyevskaya, to pursue the proceedings he had initiated.

7. The Government contended that the complaint under Article 5 § 3 was of inherently personal nature and concerned non-transferable right, and thus invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.

8. For its part, the Court reiterates that in determining this matter the decisive point is not whether the rights in question are transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs or the next of kin can in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant’s wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08,
§§ 22-23, 17 January 2017; and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 87 and 117, 12 December 2017). Also, human rights cases before the Court generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (ibid.). The Court is satisfied that the condition of close kinship has been met and that Mrs Ardabyevskaya has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the application is pursued on behalf of the applicant. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mrs Ardabyevskaya has standing to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999‑VI). For practical reasons, Mr Ardabyevskiy will continue to be called “the applicant” in this judgment.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

9. 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.”

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

4. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

14. In application no. 49116/20 the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), regarding detention in a metal cage during court hearings.

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

15. In application no. 49116/20 the applicant also complained under Article 5 of the Convention.

16. The Court has examined the application 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, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17. 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.”

18. 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.

19. 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,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that Mrs Ardabyevskaya has standing to pursue the proceedings initiated by her late husband, Mr Ardabyevskiy (application no. 73364/17);
3. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 49116/20 inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention as regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. 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 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)

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