THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KRAVETS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 49961/10)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

24 November 2016

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

In the case of Kravets v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Helena Jäderblom, President,
	Dmitry Dedov,
	Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 49961/10) 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 a Russian national, Mr Ruslan Georgiyevich Kravets (“the applicant”), on 24 August 2010.
2.  The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3.  The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
4.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. He also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
THE LAW
Article I.	I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
5.  The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicant under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the excessive length of pre-trial detention, offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s judgment. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the abovementioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on the amount, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case insofar as it concerned the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The Government did not comment on the applicant’s additional complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
6.  The Court has not received a response from the applicant which accepts the terms of the unilateral declaration.
7.  The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.”
8.  Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI)).
9.  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012).
10.  Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application insofar as it concerned a complaint about the excessive length of pre-trial detention (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
11.  In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in the part indicated in the previous paragraph (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
12.  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
13.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part pertaining to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Article II.	II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
14.  The applicant submitted also a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). The Government did not comment and did not mention that complaint in their unilateral declaration (see paragraph 5 above). The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 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 violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 154, 22 May 2012.
Article III.	III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15.  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.”
16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, to its finding of a violation of the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant 500 euros (see appended table).
17.  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.  Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein and decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention insofar as it relates to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;

2.  Declares the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention admissible;

3.  Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the lack of speedy review of the detention matters;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
		Hasan Bakırcı	Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar	President

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.	Application no.
Date of introduction	Applicant name
Date of birth
	Representative name and location	Period of detention	Length of detention	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)	
1.		49961/10
24/08/2010	Ruslan Georgiyevich KRAVETS
08/01/1963	Lapin Dmitriy Viktorovich
Moscou	02/12/2009 to
02/10/2010
	10 month(s) and 1 day(s)
	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention	1,000 under the Unilateral Declaration
and
500 in respect of a violation of Article 5 (4)