Here’s a breakdown of the Kurkov v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention of the applicant, Mr. Kurkov. The Court determined that Mr. Kurkov’s detention, lasting one year, three months, and seven days, was excessively long. The Russian courts had employed fragile reasoning, made unsupported assumptions about risks of flight or obstruction of justice, and failed to conduct the proceedings with due diligence. Despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022, the Court asserted jurisdiction because the events occurred before that date. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Kurkov €1,400 in damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged on December 20, 2021, and that the applicant was represented by a lawyer in Moscow. It also mentions that the Russian Government was notified of the application.
* **Facts:** This section briefly describes the applicant’s details and refers to an appended table for specific information relevant to the application, particularly focusing on the applicant’s complaint regarding the length of his pre-trial detention.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction to examine the application, emphasizing that the relevant events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 5 § 3:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It reiterates the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and references previous judgments establishing principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the issue of just satisfaction, referencing its case-law and the documents in its possession to justify the awarded sum of €1,400 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, unanimously holding that it has jurisdiction, declaring the application admissible, finding a breach of Article 5 § 3, and ordering Russia to pay the applicant €1,400 within three months, with interest accruing thereafter.
* **Appendix:** A table provides specific details such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, representative’s information, detention period, courts involved, specific defects in the detention, and the amount awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Jurisdiction Post-Withdrawal:** The judgment confirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, which is crucial for pending and future applications against Russia.
* **Violation of Article 5 § 3:** The Court’s finding of a violation due to unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention, supported by specific examples of deficiencies in the domestic court’s reasoning and procedures, provides a clear standard for assessing similar cases.
* **Award of Damages:** The decision to award €1,400 offers a benchmark for compensation in cases involving similar violations and circumstances.
* **Specific Defects:** The identified defects, such as “fragility of the reasons employed by the courts” and “use of assumptions…of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice,” serve as specific indicators of what constitutes a violation of Article 5 § 3.
: This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have experienced similar violations related to pre-trial detention by Russia before September 16, 2022.
