Case of European Court of Human Rights, January 21, 2021 (case BOKHONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA)

Resolution Date:January 21, 2021



(Applications nos. 74883/17 and 8 others –

see appended list)



21 January 2021

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

In the case of Bokhonov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,Dmitry Dedov,Peeter Roosma, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:


  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.


  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.


  5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

  6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

    Article 5 § 3

    “3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

  7. 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, 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).

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

  11. In applications nos. 74883/17, 249/18, 28330/19 and 820/20, the 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial