KHANOV A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15327/05
Aleksandr Dumaganovich KHANOV against Russia
and 15 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,

and Hasan Bakırcı, 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicant and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

A. 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.

B. The applicants’ victim status in cases no. 24790/06, 40560/06 and 47042/06

In their observations the respondent Government drew the Court’s attention to the fact that the criminal proceedings against the three applicants in the mentioned cases had been discontinued and that as a result of subsequent rehabilitation proceedings all three applicants had been fully compensated for any damage they had sustained during their criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Government invited the Court to discontinue the proceedings in those cases for the loss of the applicants’ victim status.

The applicants in these three cases did not contest having been in receipt of the said compensations, but argued that their amounts had been insufficient.

The Court observes that where domestic proceedings include an admission of the breach by the national authorities and the payment of a sum of money amounting to redress, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Shcherbakov v. Russia, no. 23939/02, §§ 55-64, 17 June 2010).

In the present case, each of the three applicants brought actions for damages in connection with their unlawful prosecution and the domestic courts made the following awards:

- Ms Perova – by two separate court decisions dated 9 April 2007 and 25 February 2009 the respective sums of RUB 50,000 (EUR 1,438) and RUB 80,000 (EUR 1,743) in compensation of non-pecuniary damage resulting from unlawful prosecution;

- Mr Kondrashkin – by a court decision of 5 May 2006 the sum of RUB 100,000 (EUR 2,940) in compensation of non-pecuniary damage resulting from unlawful prosecution;

- Mr Semenov – by a court decision of 20 August 2009 the sum of RUB 3,644,257 (EUR 88,000) in compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from unlawful prosecution.

In all three cases the domestic courts emphasised that, in assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicants, they took account of particular circumstances in which the harm had been caused and the evidence submitted by the applicants concerning the physical and psychological suffering sustained as a result of their unlawful prosecution. The Court also notes that the domestic courts specifically took into account the length of the proceedings when assessing the intensity of their respective physical and moral suffering.

In view of the above, the Court accepts that as a result of these proceedings the domestic courts explicitly recognised violations of the applicants’ right to trial within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and afforded them appropriate and sufficient redress.

The Court thus accepts the Government’s argument concerning the loss of the applicant’s victim status in respect of these complaints. Accordingly, in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned, the cases brought by these three applicants are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35, §§ 3 and 4.

C. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)

In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for delays which occurred in the process of the examination of the applicants’ criminal cases.

In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the cases, the applicants’ conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015)

In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

D. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings)

Certain applicants complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings in their civil cases. The Court reiterates in this respect that this provision only applies to those with an arguable claim under the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61). Given that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 was rejected for being manifestly ill-founded, the complaint under Article 13 should also be declared manifestly ill-founded and rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

E. Remaining complaints

Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 July 2016.

Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX