ALIYEV A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 21290/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 February 2026

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

In the case of Aliyev and Others v. Russia,

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

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 February 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 April 2018.

2. The applicants were represented by Mr D. Holiner, a lawyer practising in London.

3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. Jurisdiction

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

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

7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

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

12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters, and Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 256-73, 7 June 2022, and Church of Scientology of St Petersburg and Others v. Russia, no. 47191/06, 2 October 2014, concerning various restrictions imposed on and prosecution of members of religious organisations based on their religious beliefs.

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint about discrimination under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. 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, and Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, § 300), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine the complaint about discrimination under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the -established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 26 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application 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.