Extended pre trial detention for up to 4 years without sufficient justification or consideration of alternative restrictive conditions. Violation of the right to personal liberty
JUDGMENT
Kovrov and others v. Russia 16.11.2021 (app. no. 42296/09, 71805/11, 75089/13, 1327/16, and 14206/16).
SUMMARY
Automatic extension of temporary detention. Failure to consider the possibility of alternative restrictive terms. Insufficient reasoning.
The applicants were arrested on suspicion of various offenses such as fraud and fatal bodily harm and were remanded in custody or placed under house arrest for up to 4 years. The national courts extended the pre-trial detention and house arrest for a long period of time using standard reasoning, without identifying the reasons with the circumstances of the applicants’ cases or verifying whether the reasons were still valid in the advanced stages of the proceedings.
The ECtHR reiterated that continued detention could be justified in a given case only if there were real indications of reasons of public interest. Judicial authorities must respect the presumption of innocence to ensure that the grounds for deprivation of liberty were “relevant” and “sufficient” and that they exercised “particular diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. According to the case law of the Court, the house arrest is also considered, due to its degree and intensity, as a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention.
In the present case, the ECtHR found that the applicants’ detention periods, ranging from 1 month to 4 years, had been extended without the domestic courts basing their decision on specific events which imposed the detention or consider alternative restrictive conditions. Violation of article 5§3 of the ECHR.
Violation of Article 5 par.5 of the ECHR as well, as there was no enforceable right to compensation in the defendant state.
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The case concerns pre-trial detention and house arrest in Russia.
The applicants are five Russian nationals who were arrested on suspicion of various crimes, ranging
from fraud to inflicting bodily harm resulting in death. The domestic courts authorised the
applicants’ detention and house arrest and the extension of these measures on several occasions,
based on the gravity of the charges and the possibility of reoffending, influencing witnesses,
destroying evidence, or otherwise obstructing the proper course of the proceedings. Their pre-trial
detention and/or house arrest lasted for periods from one to four years. They were all subsequently
convicted as charged.
Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants allege that their pre-trial
detention and house arrest was not necessary or properly justified, and was automatically extended
without considering alternative measures. Mr Kovrov further relies on Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right
to compensation) to complain that it was impossible for him to obtain compensation for the
violation of his right to release pending trial.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 5 § 3: The periods of pre-trial detention and house arrest to be taken into consideration had ranged from one year and one month to four years and 10 months. When examining the applicants’ complaints about their pre-trial detention and house arrest, the Court applied the same criteria for the evaluation of deprivation of liberty, irrespective of the place where the applicants had been detained. By failing to address specific facts underpinning the existence of such risks or properly consider alternative preventive measures, and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the courts had extended the applicants’ detention and house arrest on grounds which could not be regarded as sufficient to justify the length.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of Article 5 § 5 in the case of Mr Kovrov, given that the latter did not have an enforceable right to compensation for his detention, which had been in breach of Article 5 § 3.
Article 41: awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage ranging from EUR 1,000 to 2,700. Claim in respect of pecuniary damage submitted by one of the applicants dismissed.
Article 46: Russia’s highest courts – the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court – had directed their attention to the issue of the unjustified pre-trial detention and house arrest, providing specific explanations on how to secure the rights of detained persons within the framework of the existing legislation and how to comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3. In line with the above indications relating to alternative preventive measures, in the recent years the domestic courts had increasingly applied house arrest instead of pre-trial detention.
Therefore, the Court acknowledged that the respondent State had already taken important steps to remedy the problems related to unjustified deprivation of liberty. The Court welcomed the efforts made by the Russian authorities aimed at bringing Russian legislation and practice in compliance with the Convention requirements and the statistics demonstrating a reduction in the excessive use of detention as a preventive measure. At the same time, the Court considered that consistent and long‑term efforts had to continue in order to achieve compliance with Articles 5 §§ 3 and 5, in particular, as regards reasoning of detention and house arrest orders and in strengthening the judicial control over the extension of such deprivation of liberty, where the rate of judicial approval remained very high, as well as establishing framework relating to compensation for unjustified deprivation of liberty.
In the Zherebin judgment the Court had held that the existing situation relating to detention called for the adoption of general measures by the respondent State. The above findings were relevant in the present case as well. In particular, the Court reiterated the standards established in Resolution no. 2077 (2015) of the Parliamentary Assembly and the importance of ensuring that decisions on deprivation of liberty contained relevant and sufficient reasons with due consideration of the detainee’s particular situation and linked grounds for deprivation of liberty with concrete circumstances of the case; encouraging further application of more lenient preventive measures such as bail; establishing a clearer framework for compensations for unjustified preventive measures, including house arrest; and taking other measures to remedy the issues raised in the present case. It was for the Committee of Ministers then to assess the effectiveness of the measures proposed by the Russian Government and to follow up on their subsequent implementation in line with the Convention requirements.
