VANYUKOV proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 41654/20
Ilya Vadimovich VANYUKOV
against Russia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,

Andreas Zünd,

Frédéric Krenc, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 August 2020,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. He was represented by Mr A.A. Dunin, a lawyer practising in the Mari El Republic.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the pre-trial detention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The applicant complained that there had been no sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention between 5 August and 3 December 2020. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read 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.”

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).

In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention is inadmissible.

The Court notes that, when deciding on the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in a drunk driving accident and the gravity of charges, risk of absconding, reoffending, putting pressure on victims and witnesses, including children. The courts also considered the possibility of applying house arrest and referred to the applicant’s personality. In particular, they established that he did not have any source of income, was not registered at his place of residence and had been previously convicted of drinking alcohol in a public place. The Court is prepared to accept that the seriousness of the alleged crime and the applicant’s conduct could reasonably constitute sufficient factual grounds justifying his pre-trial detention for about four months (see Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, §§ 128-37, 12 February 2009, and Skorkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 7129/03, 27 September 2011).

In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.

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)