THIRD SECTION

CASE OF OGLY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 49998/17 and 8 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 July 2018

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

In the case of Ogly and Others v. Russia,

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

 Alena Poláčková, President,
 Dmitry Dedov,
 Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2018,

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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

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. 53125/17, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  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.

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

6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:

“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.”

7.  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).

8.  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.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, including the Government’ argument of non-exhaustion related to application no. 49998/17, 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, including that concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies in the length-of-detention cases (see Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, §§ 131-32, 19 March 2009), the Court dismisses the Government’s objection and considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.

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

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

11.  In application no. 53125/17, the applicant also submitted a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 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 Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 146-149, 7 November 2017, dealing with the lack of speedy review of the detention matters.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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.”

13.  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.

14.  The Court 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.  Declares the applications admissible;

3.  Holds that these applications disclose 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 complaint raised under well-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 July 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková
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.