THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SARKISYAN v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 62614/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

3 November 2016

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

In the case of Sarkisyan 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 13 October 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 62614/13) 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 Gayk Levonovich Sarkisyan (“the applicant”), on 23 September 2013.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr A. Anokhin and Ms M. Gordeyeva, lawyers practising in Astrakhan. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3.  On 28 January 2016 the complaints concerning Article 5 § 3 and Article 5 § 4 were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
4.  The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5.  The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant.
6.  In particular, the Government acknowledged that the applicant had remained in pre-trial detention for an excessively lengthy period in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 1,200 euros 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 judgement. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the abovementioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 declaration did not mention the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
7.  The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.
THE LAW
Article I.	I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
8.  The Court reiterates the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government and will treat it as a friendly settlement between the parties pertaining to the part of the application under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
9.  It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties as regards a part of the application. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the part of the application in so far as it concerned Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
10.  Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
Article II.	II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
11.  The applicant submitted an additional complaint about delays in the examination of his appeals against the detention orders. The complaint raises an issue under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see Idalov, cited above, § 154, with further references). The 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 Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
Article III.	III.  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 sum 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 strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in so far as it concerns the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention;

2.  Declares admissible the applicant’s complaint about the lack of speedy review of his detention;

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

3.  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 3 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.		62614/13
23/09/2013	Gayk Levonovich SARKISYAN
02/10/1983	Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich
Astrakhan	01/08/2012 to
25/07/2013
	11 month(s) and 25 day(s)
	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
1) appeal against the detention order of 01/04/2013 was examined on 16/05/2013

2) appeal against the detention order of 22/02/2013 was examined on 16/05/2013
	500