DIGAY A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 48599/17
Nataliya Sergeyevna DIGAY against Russia
and 5 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and or/house arrest were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 22781/18 complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

2. Complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention)

The applicant in application no. 48599/17 complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand during the period indicated in the appended table. In application no. 27236/18 the applicant also raised a complaint about an excessively lengthy period of his detention prior to his conviction on 27 October 2016. The Court notes that the same complaints have already been examined by it in application no. 34645/17 (see Digay and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 34645/17 and 8 others, 16 January 2020) and in application no. 50771/16 (see Perekrestov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 18467/16 and 5 others, 9 November 2017). Consequently, these complaints are inadmissible in terms of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention for being substantially the same as those examined by the Court in applications nos. 34645/17 and 50771/16 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

In addition, the applicant in application no. 27236/18 complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about another period of his detention following the quashing of his conviction (see appended table below). The Court observes that the applicant’s appeal against the latest detention order was rejected on 25 October 2017. The application was lodged with the Court on 20 May 2018, which is more than six months later. Consequently, the complaint about the detention period covered by the appeal decision of 25 October 2017 is belated. The Court further observes that there is no indication that the applicant challenged his subsequent detention leading to his conviction on 20 November 2017, thus no evidence that he provided the domestic authorities with an opportunity to consider whether his detention during that period was compatible with his Convention right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. In view of the above, the Court finds that this part of application no. 27236/18 is also inadmissible (see, for similar reasoning, Elksnit and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 2091/11 and 3 others, 16 March 2017) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

As regards the remaining applications, the Court notes that the applicable 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). It further refers to its well-established case-law that, similarly to pre-trial detention, house arrest is considered, in view of its degree and intensity, to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 104 5 July 2016). Accordingly, both pre‑trial detention and house arrest require relevant and sufficient reasons (ibid., § 113).

Having carefully examined the remaining applications listed in the appended table in the light of the principles set out in its case-law, the Court concludes that there were relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicants’ detention and/or house arrest and that the authorities displayed special diligence in handling their cases. The Court observes that while extending the applicants’ detention and/or house arrest the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated and/or violent offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the complexity of the criminal cases against the applicants and the existence of a serious risk of their absconding or interfering with justice, confirmed, inter alia, by the pattern of their behaviour, organised nature of the crimes, extensive connection to the criminal underworld and/or substantial financial resources and previous documented attempts to put pressure on witnesses or victims or to go on a run. The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicants were liable to obstruct justice, to re-offend or to abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures but found them to be inadequate. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ continued detention or house arrest. There is nothing in the material submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the courts dealing with the matter (see, for similar reasoning, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 102-10, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38-48, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 153‑56, 22 October 2009).

In view of the above, the complaints are manifestly ill-founded, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

3. Remaining complaints

In application no. 22781/18 the applicant also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

The Court has examined these complaints 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 June 2022.

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)