THIRD SECTION CASE OF SUGROBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1687/15 and 6 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 February 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sugrobov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Kovatcheva , President , Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025, 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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW 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. Jurisdiction 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 8. 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, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; 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). 9. 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. 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov , cited above, §§ 154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Zakharkin v. Russia , no. 1555/04, §§ 152‑160, 10 June 2010, concerning the ban on representative’s visits in prison; Kosheleva and Others v. Russia, no. 9046/07, 17 January 2012, related to the hindrance of the right of the individual petition, and Vakhitov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18232/11 and 2 others, §§ 66-71, 31 January 2017, relating to violation of the presumption of innocence. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13. In applications nos. 7565/18, 34283/19 and 34291/19, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. 15. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16. 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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 7565/18, 34283/19 and 34291/19 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 1687/15 29/12/2014 Denis Aleksandrovich SUGROBOV 1976 Antonov Georgiy Borisovich Moscow 07/05/2014 to 27/04/2017 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 21 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 34 - right of individual application without hindrance - ban on meeting with the lawyer, pressure on the lawyer; the lawyer was interrogated on the applicant’s case and was recused by the investigator 3,000 32555/17 21/02/2017 Konstantin Valeryevich KARNAUKHOV 1988 18/01/2014 to 28/12/2017 Leninogorsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding 4,000 79345/17 01/11/2017 Viktor Vladimirovich ALEKSEYEV 1991 03/02/2014 to 28/12/2017 Bugulma Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Leninogorsk Town Court, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding 4,000 7565/18 11/01/2018 Sergey Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV 1990 Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna Moscow 23/01/2015 to 05/02/2018 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 3 year(s) and 14 day(s) collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention orders of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 05/09/2017 and 07/12/2017; appeal decisions by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, on 12/10/2017 and 23/01/2018 3,600 34283/19 18/06/2019 Yevgeniy Olegovich POPELYSH 1987 20/05/2015 to 18/06/2018 06/03/2019 to 28/04/2020 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 30 day(s) 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 23 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice 4,300 34291/19 18/06/2019 Dmitriy Olegovich POPELYSH 1987 21/05/2015 to 18/06/2018 06/03/2019 to 28/04/2020 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 29 day(s) 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 23 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice 4,300 20558/21 13/03/2021 Yan Nikolayevich KATELEVSKIY 1981 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg 17/08/2020 to 16/09/2022 Ramenskoye Town Court of the Moscow Region, Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court, First Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 6 (2) - lack of presumption of innocence - at the hearing on 19/08/2020 the applicant relied on a number of personal circumstances as grounds for his release. The Ramensloye Town Court dismissed them having stated that: “... those circumstances did not prevent [the applicant] from committing the crime he is charged of” (“... эти обстоятельства не являлись сдерживающим фактором на момент совершения инкриминируемого ему [заявителю] деяния”). The Moscow Regional Court on 15/09/2020 did not rectify the statement on appeal 2,700 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.