THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SEMENOV AND BACHURINA v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 7723/07 and 56124/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 October 2016

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

In the case of Semenov and Bachurina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Branko Lubarda, President,
	Pere Pastor Vilanova,
	Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in two applications (nos. 7723/07 and 56124/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Semenov and Ms Olga Vladimirovna Bachurina (“the applicants”), on 9 February and 29 November 2007, respectively.
2.  The applicant, Ms Bachurina, was represented by Mr V. Sivchenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
4.  On 7 July 2015 the complaints concerning lack of speediness of review of their pre-trial detention were communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
5.  Mr Semenov was born in 1959 and lives in Tver.
6.  Ms Bachurina was born on 8 November 1978 and lived before her arrest in the village of Strelnitsa, Voronezh Region.
I.  THE CASE OF MR SEMENOV (APPLICATION No. 7723/07)
A.  Detention orders of 11 July and 11 September 2006
7.  On 13 April 2006 Mr Semenov was arrested on suspicion of several counts of aggravated bribery. On 17 April 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Tver ordered his placement in custody. The detention was further extended by the District Court on 11 July and 11 September 2006.
8.  Mr Semenov appealed: on 14 July 2006 against the detention order of 11 July 2006 and on 12 September 2006 against the order of 11 September 2006.
9.  On 22 August and 3 October 2006, respectively, the Tver Regional Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the detention orders.
B.  Detention order of 11 October 2006
10.  On 11 October 2006 the Regional Court extended Mr Semenov’s detention.
11.  Nine days later Mr Semenov lodged an appeal statement with the Russian Supreme Court via the Regional Court.
12.  On 16 November 2006 the Regional Court dispatched the case-file to the Supreme Court which on 11 January 2007 upheld the decision of 11 October 2006.
C.  Detention order of 26 December 2006
13.  On 26 December 2006 the Regional Court once again extended the detention.
14.  Between 11 and 30 January 2007 Mr Semenov and his co-defendants lodged their appeals with the Supreme Court via the Regional Court. On 1 March 2007 the Regional Court transmitted the case-file to the Supreme Court which on 11 April 2007 upheld the order.
II.  THE CASE OF MS BACHURINA (APPLICATION No. 56124/07)
15.  On 14 July 2007 Ms Bachurina was arrested on suspicion of attempted large scale trafficking of drugs. Two days later the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised her detention.
16.  On 19 July 2007 Ms Bachurina appealed against the detention order.
17.  The detention order was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 27 August 2007.
THE LAW
I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
18.  The cases of Mr Semenov and Ms Bachurina and their grievances concerning delays in the review of the appeals against the detention orders are very similar. Their applications should therefore be joined under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
19.  The applicants complained that their appeals against the detention orders had not been examined speedily. They relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“4.  Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
20.  The Government informed the Court that the complete case-file on the pre-trial detention of Ms Bachurina and documents relating to the extension, between 11 July and 3 October 2006, of Mr Semenov’s detention had been destroyed following the expiration of the storage time-limit.
21.  As regards the review of Mr Semenov detention orders of 11 October and 26 December 2006, the Government submitted that the delays had been caused by the complexity of the case; the large number of co-defendants; the necessity to provide the parties with copies of the appeal statements and to transmit the case-file to the Supreme Court; public holidays from 1 to 8 January 2007 and the overall workload of the domestic courts. The Government also noted that the appeal proceedings had complied with the requirements of the Russian law.
A.  Admissibility
22.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
23.  The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia, where, for instance, the proceedings by which the lawfulness of applicants’ detention was decided lasted twenty-seven (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 154-56, 23 October 2012), twenty (see Butusov v. Russia, no. 7923/04, §§ 32-35, 22 December 2009) or twenty-six days (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006), stressing that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities.
24.  In the present case it took the Russian courts thirty-seven days to examine the appeal lodged by Ms Bachurina against her detention order; and thirty-two and twenty-one days, respectively, to examiner the appeals of Mr Semenov against the detention orders of 11 July and 11 September 2006. The Government did not put forward any arguments explaining these delays.
25.  The Court further takes note of the Government’s arguments concerning the review of Mr Semenov’s detention orders of 11 October and 26 December 2006. The Court recalls, however, that similar arguments were examined and dismissed in its earlier cases as an implausible explanation for delays in the appellate review of detention orders (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 523, 25 July 2013; and Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 79, 3 March 2011).
26.  The Court thus finds that the authorities were responsible for the delays in the review of Mr Semenov’s detention orders of 11 October and 26 December 2006. It took them, for no apparent reason, too long to send copies of the appeal statements to the parties or to dispatch the case-file to the appeal court. The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that even after the dispatch of the case-file it took the Supreme Court fifty-five days to examine the detention order of 11 October 2006 and forty days to review the order of 26 December 2006.
27.  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the appeal proceedings on review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention did not comply with the “speediness” requirement under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.
III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
28.  Mr Semenov raised additional complaints related to the proceedings on his detention. Having regard to all material in its possession and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application, lodged by Mr Semenov, must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
29.  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.”
A. Mr Semenov (application no. 7723/07)
1.  Damage
30.  Mr Semenov claimed 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
31.  The Government submitted that an award in the present case should be made in line with the Court’s case-law.
32.  The Court awards Mr Semenov EUR 2,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any sum that may be chargeable.
2.  Costs and expenses
33.  The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
3.  Default interest
34.  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.
B.  Ms Bachurina (application no. 56125/07)
1.  Damage
35.  Ms Bachurina did not submit any claims in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. The Court accordingly finds that there are no grounds for awarding any sum on that account.
2.  Costs and expenses
36.  Ms Bachurina did not claim any costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the complaints concerning speediness of review of the applicants’ detention admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 7723/07 inadmissible;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of judicial review of the applicants’ detention;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay Mr Semenov, within three months EUR 2,500 (two thousand and five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of Mr Semenov’s claim for just satisfaction.

6.  Holds that there are no grounds to make any awards to Ms Bachurina in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Fatoş Aracı	Branko Lubarda
	Deputy Registrar	President