Klyakhin v Russia

Facts
The applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in a robbery. After a sustained period of detention on remand, he was convicted, but subsequently the conviction was quashed because of procedural irregularities. In spite of this, the applicant was further detained until he was released as a result of an amnesty.The applicant invoked Articles, 5, 6 and 13 of the European Convention complaining that he was denied effective remedies, in respect of violations of the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of procedures to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Under Articles 8 and 34 the applicant complained that prison authorities interfered with his correspondence to and from the Court.

On 26 August 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in a robbery and on 5 September 1997 was officially charged. He denied the government's submission that the Armavir Town Court reviewed his appeals twice, and submitted that a judge ordered his continued detention without reason. On 4 March 1998 the hearing was adjourned because the applicant had had insufficient access to the case-file. The applicant submitted he was given insufficient time to review the documentation and was handcuffed while accessing it. Hearings were adjourned or cancelled five times until the trial resumed on 29 March 1999. On 6 April 1999 the case was returned to the prosecutor's office for further investigation. The applicant's detention was then extended without giving reasons and on 16 August 1999 the applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced by the Town Court to five years' imprisonment. On 2 December 1999, the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the conviction of 16 August 1999 for procedural irregularities and remitted the case to the first instance court. On 30 December 1999 the applicant was returned to the Armavir town detention centre. On 17 April 2000 the hearing opened at the Town Court and on 18 April it ordered a medical examination of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital. The applicant appealed against that decision and his continued detention on remand to the Town Court on 19, 24 and 25 April 2000, as well as 12, 23 and 25 May 2000, but received no reply. After nine requests between February and December 2000, the applicant was allowed access to the file. He submitted that he was allowed about 1 ? hours to consider the case-file of about 500 pages. On 18 December the case was further adjourned. On 9 February 2001 the applicant was convicted of attempted robbery, sentenced, and then released from detention, as he had by that time spent three years, five months and thirteen days in detention and was granted an amnesty.

The applicant also claimed that in June 1998 the local administration, where he had been detained on remand, refused to forward his application to the European Court and on 25 March 1999 that he forwarded a letter to the European Court, with attachments, which never reached the Court.

Decision
The Court found a violation of the applicant's right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial (Article 5(3)). It emphasised that its jurisdiction covers only the period after 5May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in Russia, but recalled it would take into account the state of proceedings existing at the material date. The period for consideration runs from the taking into custody of the accused until the charge is determined. During this

period, justifiable detention requires reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence, but after a certain lapse of time this is insufficient. Justification of detention thereafter requires relevant and sufficient grounds, which the State submitted were the gravity of the charges and the risk of obstruction of trial proceedings. If these grounds are accepted, the Court then asks whether the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of proceedings. However, it was held that the severity of charges alone would not suffice and no evidence of the risk of interference with due process was submitted.

The applicant also complained that, although there were some detention reviews, there were many occasions when he had not been allowed to take proceedings to decide the lawfulness of his detention or when such appeals were not properly examined (a violation of Article 5(4)). It was held that while the procedure does not always necessitate the same guarantees as those required for full litigation, it must be of a judicial character appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question. Further, it must examine compliance with the domestic law's procedural requirements, reasonableness of suspicion leading to arrest and legitimacy of purpose of arrest and detention. The applicant submitted that many of his complaints were unanswered and the review which did take place did not address his submissions, which the Court considered to be neither implausible nor frivolous. This complaint was therefore also upheld.

There was also a violation of Article 6(1), the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The period concerned begins with the charge and ends at the final determination or discontinuance of proceedings, of which two years and seven and a half months followed the date of entry into force of the Convention in relation to Russia. A pragmatic approach to reasonableness is taken, with consideration of the particular facts of the case, notably its complexity and the applicant's conduct. It was held that the case was not particularly complex, that the applicant did not significantly contribute to the length of proceedings and that in fact certain lapses of time were attributable to the authorities, especially that from April 1998 until March 1999, when no hearings took place, except for adjournments. The Court also found the applicant did not have any effective remedies for the excessive length of proceedings, in violation of Article 13. The State had failed to indicate any remedy which could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided redress for delays.

Article 8 protects the right to respect for correspondence, allowing interference, for example, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights of others. That the applicant's letters were opened was not disputed by the State, which argued simply that Russian law allowed such censorship at the time. However, the fact that such action was legal under domestic law does not suffice, as under Article 8 it was not "necessary in a democratic society" in pursuit of a specified legitimate aim. No such aim was offered by the Government, and therefore the interference was not necessary, in breach of Article 8(2). This did not, however constitute a further breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) which does not extend to allowing a challenge to a State's primary legislation as being contrary to the Convention. Article 34, on the other hand, was breached by the refusal of the prison administration to send the applicant's letters to the Court. The Court highlighted the importance for applications to be made free from pressure in order for the system of individual application to function properly. The Government contested such interference but the evidence, notably a letter dated 8 June 2000 bearing a postmark of 20 October 2000 which contained none of the enclosures listed by the applicant, was in the applicant's favour. No reasonable explanation was offered by the Government and the Court found a breach of Article 34.

The applicant was awarded a total of €5,800 (Euros) for non-pecuniary damages and costs.

Klyakhin_admiss

Klyakhin_judgment

Klyakhin_judgment RUS

The above admissibility decision and judgment are taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm

The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.

The Russian translation of the judgment was made by Novaya Yusticiya and published in the Bulleten’ Yevropeyskovo Suda (http://www.sudprecedent.ru/bulletin/). EHRAC would like to thank Novaya Yusticiya for its kind permission to reproduce the translation here and Maxim Timofeyev for facilitating this.