CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8ED1F3C2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s95F1DE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD1F936F5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1B0D0B53 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE007C52A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1B6AF0FA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8B9A8755 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6E0F97D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB4B325FD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC94F7C2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sF0957490 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s882024B3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5A1E38F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7D73FE43 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C0AA17D { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s16935426 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sF11CDCAF { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAC7466F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC75FC8B1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify } .sCBC6AB24 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s47F00B80 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1D757DF6 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s450434BC { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB7A0F3ED { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s49AC2781 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt; color:#800000 } .s7C5D5C41 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt; color:#993300 } .sC4726361 { font-family:Arial; color:#800000 } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s36B7CCB7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.75pt; text-align:justify } .sC08B2ED8 { width:4.08pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s438023F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sA676C2DD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .sCC235651 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s48125EFE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sCFCA8EDF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB2D0B857 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s136DAA9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s115C6F62 { width:5.64pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF KOROLEVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 1600/09)         JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   13 November 2012     FINAL   13/02/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Koroleva v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 October 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 1600/09) 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, Ms Yuliya Viktorovna Koroleva (“the applicant”), on 11 February 2009. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged that her pre-trial detention had been unlawful and unreasonably long and that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of her detention. 4.     On 1 December 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1980 and lived before her arrest in Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan. She is currently detained in Ufa IZ-3/1 remand prison. A.     The applicant’s arrest and detention pending investigation 6.     On 24 November 2006 the applicant was arrested and charged with large-scale drug trafficking. 7.     On 25 November 2006 Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) examined the investigator’s request to remand the applicant in custody. The court held as follows: “Ms Koroleva Yu.V. is charged with serious offences, which are punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years. Moreover, Ms Koroleva Yu.V. committed the above crimes while she was standing trial before the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court (Ufa). Ms Koroleva Yu. V. has no fixed abode and is not registered. Furthermore, Ms Koroleva Yu. V. is a drug addict and, if released, she might engage in further criminal activities related to drugs in order to provide herself with drugs and improve her financial situation.” 8.     Taking into account the above elements, the danger to society presented by the offences imputed to the applicant and the need to secure the execution of her sentence, Leninskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 9.     On 23 January 2007 Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges against her. The court further held that the applicant was a drug addict and if released she might abscond, continue her criminal activities or interfere with the proceedings, and noted that her detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of her sentence. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 10.     On 11 May 2007 Kirovskiy District Court (Ufa) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2007. The court held, in particular, that the period fixed by the court for the applicant’s detention was not sufficient to allow a judge, who would receive the case for examination on the merits, to take a decision concerning the applicant’s detention during trial. The court also held that the applicant was charged with a serious offence presenting a danger to society, and that if released she might continue criminal activities, abscond or interfere with the proceedings. The court also noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of the sentence. 11.     On 15 August 2007 Kirovskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2007, on the same grounds as given in its decision of 11 May 2007. 12.     On 26 September 2007 the applicant was presented with the final version of the charges. She was accused of several episodes of large-scale drug trafficking committed as a member of an organised criminal group. 13 .     On 26 October 2007 the applicant and her counsel started familiarising themselves with the materials of the criminal case as did other twenty-nine defendants. According to the Government, the file consisted of 160 volumes. 14.     On 15 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan (“the Supreme Court”) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 February 2008, referring to the gravity of the charges against her. The Supreme Court also stated that if released she might flee from justice, engage in criminal activities or obstruct the establishment of the truth. 15.     On 7 February 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17   May 2008, bringing its total duration to seventeen months and twenty-four days. The court held as follows: “Ms Koroleva is charged with particularly serious offences punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. The grounds on which she was initially remanded in custody...had not changed. The investigation of the criminal case is particularly complex. These circumstances should be regarded as extraordinary circumstances which can serve as a basis for the extension of the defendant’s detention.” 16 .     On 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 May 2008, thus bringing its total duration to eighteen months. The court held as follows: “....The term of Ms Koroleva’s detention is to expire on 17 May 2008. As required by Article 109 § 5 of the CCrP [the Code of Criminal Procedure], the investigation was completed and the materials of the criminal case presented to the applicant and her counsel no later than thirty days before the expiry of the maximum period of detention. However, the investigating authorities need additional time in order to comply with the requirements of Article 217 of the CCrP. The preventive measure applied to Ms Koroleva had been duly justified in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP since she was charged with a number of particularly serious offences as a member of an organised criminal group, and if released she might interfere with the proceedings or abscond and therefore the court does not see any reason to alter the preventive measure ...” 17.     It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that detention order. B.     Further extension of the applicant’s detention pending the investigation 18 .     On 20 May 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2008, bringing its total duration to twenty-one months. The court cited the same legal provision and referred to the same grounds as in its decision of 15 May 2008. On 13 August 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld that detention order. 19 .     The Supreme Court further extended the applicant’s detention on 14   August until 17 November 2008, and on 12 November 2008 until 17   February 2009, referring to the same grounds as in the decision of 15   May 2008. 20.     On 27 November 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order of 14 August 2008. 21.     On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the detention order of 12 November 2008 and requested to be released under a written undertaking. She submitted that the extension of her detention beyond eighteen months had been unlawful. She could no longer interfere with the proceedings, since she and her co-defendants had already started familiarising themselves with the materials of the case. The applicant also asked the court to take into account the state of her health and the fact that her dependent grandfather had been placed in an old people’s home. 22.     On 27 January 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 12 November 2008. It held, in particular, that extension of the applicant’s detention had been in accordance with law and had been duly reasoned. It further noted that the grounds on which the applicant had been initially remanded in custody had not changed and that it had not been established that the state of the applicant’s health was incompatible with her detention. The court also found no grounds to cancel or alter the preventive measure. 23.     On 11 February 2009 the applicant and her counsel finished familiarising themselves with the materials of the criminal case. 24 .     On 12 February 2009 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2009, still on the same grounds as before, and thus brought the total length of the applicant’s detention to twenty-nine months and twenty-four days. 25 .     On 24 February 2009 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation against the detention order of 12 February 2009. She submitted that the extension of her detention had been unlawful and poorly reasoned and requested to release her under a written undertaking. The investigation of the case was complete; therefore she could no longer interfere with the proceedings if released. The court had not advanced any arguments to show that there was a danger of her absconding. The applicant considered that the detention order of 12 February 2009 had violated her rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. She requested the appeal court to examine the appeal in her presence. 26.     On 7 April 2009 the investigator in charge of the case informed the applicant that while the defendants were familiarising themselves with the criminal case twenty volumes of the case file had been stolen. On 16   January 2009 criminal proceedings had been initiated in this respect and the lost volumes had been restored. The investigator informed the applicant that she could now familiarise herself with those volumes of the case file. 27 .     On 22 April 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 12 February 2009. The court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appear at the appeal hearing. The court held, with reference to the position of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 61 in Relevant domestic law and practice below), that the applicant had stated her position in her grounds of appeal. She had not indicated any circumstances which would require her personal presence at the appeal hearing. Therefore, the refusal of leave to appear at the appeal hearing would not violate her procedural rights and would not prevent the appeal court from taking a lawful and reasoned decision on her appeal. 28.     As to the merits of the applicant’s appeal, the appeal court found that the extension of the applicant’s detention had been lawful and duly reasoned. It held, in particular, that taking into account the large number of defendants in the criminal case at hand, the volume of the case, the familiarisation of all of the defendants with the materials of the case as well as the drafting of the bill of indictment could not have been finished within the term of the applicant’s detention fixed by a previous court order. It further noted that the grounds on which the applicant’s detention had been ordered initially had not changed and that it had not been established that the state of the applicant’s health was incompatible with her detention. The court found no grounds to cancel or alter the preventive measure. The court further held that the applicant’s complaint that her rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention had been violated were unsubstantiated. The applicant’s counsel was not present at the appeal hearing. The prosecutor was not present either. 29 .     On 8 May 2009 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2009, bringing its total duration to thirty-two months and twenty-four days. That detention order was worded in the same terms as the detention order of 15 May 2008. 30 .     On 15 May 2009 the applicant appealed against the detention order of 8 May 2009 to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. She submitted, in particular, that her detention had been unlawfully extended beyond eighteen months, and the court had not taken into account her poor health and her complaints of a lack of appropriate medical assistance in the remand prison. The investigating authorities had requested the extension of her detention on the grounds of the need for her to familiarise herself with the materials of the case, but those materials had been stolen. In any event she had finished familiarising herself with the materials of the criminal case. The applicant requested the appeal court to examine her appeal in her presence. 31.     On 16 July 2009 the last of the applicant’s co-defendants finished familiarising herself with the materials of the case. 32 .     On 28 July 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 8 May 2009. It dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appear at the hearing, finding that the criminal case against the applicant and her co-accused had not yet arrived at the court for trial and had not yet been examined, that the applicant had sent her written submissions to the court and that the prosecutor was not taking part in the examination of her appeal. As to the merits of the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the detention order of 8 May 2009 was lawful and duly reasoned. The applicant’s counsel was not present at the appeal hearing. C.     The applicant’s detention during the trial and her release 33 .     On 3 August 2009 the criminal case against the applicant and her co ‑ defendants was referred to the Supreme Court for trial. 34.     On 5 August 2009 the Supreme Court set the preliminary hearing of the case for 13 August 2009. However, two of the applicant’s co-defendants (M. and T.), who were under a written undertaking, did not appear on that date. 35 .     At the preliminary hearing of 14 August 2009 the trial court held that the crimes of which the absconded co-defendants were accused were closely linked to crimes allegedly committed by other co-defendants, and that it would therefore be impossible to examine the charges against them separately. The court accordingly decided to put the missing co-defendants on the warrant list and suspended criminal proceedings against all defendants until the missing co-defendants were captured. Regarding the other co-defendants, including the applicant, the court held as follows: “... [the other co-defendants] are charged with serious and particularly serious offences. The grounds on which they had been placed in detention ... still remained valid. The defendants’ and their counsel’s arguments about their permanent place of residence and job, family situation, and serious health problems cannot be regarded as grounds for changing the measure of restraint. In such circumstances, the preventive measure applied to them in the form of detention should not be changed until the preliminary hearing of the case. However, taking into account the requirements of Article 255 § 2 [of the CCrP], they should not stay in detention for more than six months after the criminal case has come to court. ... the measure of restraint [applied to other co-defendants, including the applicant] should be detention on remand, for a period which should not go beyond 3 February 2010 ...” At the hearing of 14 August 2009 the applicant was represented by legal counsel.   36 .     On 12 November 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order of 14 August 2009 having found that the applicant’s detention had been extended in compliance with Article 255 § 2 of the CCrP and that it was based on sufficient reasons. 37.     On 24 November 2009 the trial court resumed the proceedings and set the preliminary hearing of the case for 14 December 2009. On the same date the trial court held that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant and some of her co-defendants should remain unchanged. 38.     The case was adjourned on 14 December and 18 January 2010 because two of the applicant’s co-defendants were sick. 39.     On 29 January 2010, after holding a preliminary hearing, the trial court set the examination of the case for 10 February 2010. By the same decision the trial court severed the proceedings against co-defendant T., who was still at large, into separate proceedings. The trial court further held, having regard to the applicant’s medical condition and also to the fact that among the defendants in those proceedings she was the only woman who had been detained for a long period of time, that the applicant should be released under a written undertaking. D.     The applicant’s conviction 40.     On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court found the applicant guilty of attempted drug trafficking and acquitted her of the remaining charges. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. It appears that appeal proceedings are pending. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (“the CCrP”) of 2001, in force since 1 July 2002 1.     Preventive measures 41.     “Preventive measures” or “measures of restraint” include an undertaking not to leave a town or region, personal surety, bail and detention (Article 98). If necessary, the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear (Article 112). 42.     When deciding on a preventive measure, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “sufficient grounds to believe” that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial, reoffend or obstruct the establishment of the truth (Article 97). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused’s character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99). 43.     Detention may be ordered by a court in respect of a person suspected or charged with a criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, provided that a less restrictive preventive measure cannot be applied (Article 108 § 1). 2.     Time-limits for detention “pending investigation” (a)     Initial detention and its extensions 44.     After arrest the suspect is placed in detention “pending investigation”. Detention “pending investigation” must not exceed two months (Article 109 § 1). 45.     A judge may extend the detention up to six months. Further extensions to up to twelve months may be granted by a judge only in relation to those accused of serious or particularly serious criminal offences, provided that the criminal case is particularly complex and there are grounds justifying detention (Article 109 § 2). 46 .     An extension of detention beyond twelve months and up to eighteen months may be authorised by a court only in exceptional circumstances in respect of those accused of particularly serious offences, upon an investigator’s request approved by the Prosecutor General or his Deputy (Article 109 § 3). 47.     Extension of detention beyond eighteen months is prohibited and the detainee must be immediately released, unless the prosecution’s request for an extension for the purpose of studying the case has been granted by a court in accordance with Article 109 § 8 of the CCrP (Article 109 § 4). (b)     Supplementary extension for study of the case file 48 .     Upon completion of the investigation, the detainee must be given access to the case file no later than thirty days preceding the expiry of the maximum period of detention indicated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 109 (Article   109   §   5). 49.     If access was granted at a later date, the detainee must be released after the expiry of the maximum period of detention (Article 109 § 6). 50 .     If access was granted thirty days before the expiry of the maximum period of detention but the thirty-day period proved to be insufficient to read the entire case file, the investigator may request the court to extend the period of detention. The request must be submitted no later than seven days before the expiry of the detention period. If several defendants are involved in the proceedings and the thirty-day period is insufficient for at least one of them to read the entire case file, the investigator may request the court to extend the period of detention in respect of those defendants who have completed reading the case file, provided that the need to apply a custodial measure to them persists and that there are no grounds for choosing another preventive measure (Article 109 § 7). 51 .     Within five days of receipt of the request for an extension the judge must decide whether to grant it or reject it and release the detainee. If the extension is granted, the period of detention is extended until such time as would be sufficient for the detainee and counsel to finish reading the case file and for the prosecution to submit the case to the trial court (Article   109   §   8). 3.     Time-limits for detention “during trial” 52 .     From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court, the defendant’s detention is “before the court” (or “during trial”). The period of detention “during trial” is calculated from the date on which the court receives the criminal case and to the date on which the judgment is adopted. Detention “during trial” may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3). 4.     Proceedings before the appeal court 53.     An appeal against a judicial decision ordering or extending detention may be lodged with a higher court within three days. The appeal court must decide on the appeal within three days of its receipt (Article 108 § 11). 54.     If a convict wishes to attend an appeal hearing, he should indicate that wish in his statement of appeal (Article 375 § 2). 55.     Upon receipt of the criminal case and the statement of appeal, the judge fixes the date, time and place for a hearing. The parties shall be notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing no later than fourteen days before the scheduled hearing. The court shall decide whether the detainee should be summoned to the hearing. A detainee held in custody who expresses a wish to be present at the examination of the appeal shall be entitled to participate either directly in the court session or to state his case by video link. The court shall make a decision with respect to the form of participation of the detainee in the court hearing. If individuals who have been given timely notice of the venue and time of the appeal hearing fail to appear, this shall not preclude examination of the case (Article 376). B.     Practice of domestic courts 1.     Detention pending investigation and trial 56 .     By its decision no. 184-O of 6 June 2003 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (“the Constitutional Court”) declined to examine a complaint by Mr Yest., in which he challenged compliance with the Constitution of Article   109   §   8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as it allowed the extension of detention pending investigation beyond the maximum time-limit and indefinitely while the defendant finished reading the material in the case file. The Constitutional Court held that such an extension was only possible if there still existed “sufficient grounds to believe” that the accused might abscond during the investigation or trial, reoffend or otherwise obstruct the establishment of the truth, as provided by Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In so far as the challenged provision did not set a specific time-limit for holding the defendant in custody while he studied the case file, the Constitutional Court considered that it allowed for the possibility of determining such a time-limit for each particular case, depending on its specific features, on condition that the grounds for detention established in Article   97 had been sufficiently confirmed. The court concluded that the challenged provision could not be interpreted as providing for superfluous or unlimited detention. Neither did it deprive the defendant and his counsel of the right to challenge before a higher court the lawfulness and validity of the extension order, as well as the right to make an application for the custodial measure to be overturned or altered. 57 .     In its ruling no. 245-O-O of 20 March 2008, the Constitutional Court noted that it had reiterated on several occasions (rulings nos. 14-П, 4-П, 417-O and 330-O of 13 June 1996, 22 March 2005, 4 December 2003 and 12 July 2005 respectively) that a court, when taking a decision under Articles 100, 108, 109 and 255 of the CCrP on the placement of an individual in detention or on the extension of a period of an individual’s detention, was under obligation, inter alia , to calculate and specify a time-limit for such detention. 58 .     By its decision no. 271-O-O of 19 March 2009, the Constitutional Court declined to examine a complaint by Mr R. With reference to its previous decisions of 13   June 1996, 25   December 1998 and 6 June 2003, the Constitutional Court held that even though Article   109   §   8 did not define the maximum period within which an extension could be granted for the purpose of studying the case file, it did not imply the possibility of excessive or unlimited detention because, in granting an extension, the court should not rely solely on a well-founded suspicion that the defendant had committed the offence, but should mainly base its decision on specific circumstances justifying the continued detention, such as his potential to exert pressure on witnesses or an established risk of his absconding or reoffending, as well as the importance of the subject matter of the proceedings, the complexity of the case, the conduct of the defendant and other relevant factors. 59 .     In its decision no. 22 of 29   October 2009 “On the Practice of Application by the Courts of Preventive Measures in the Form of Remand in Custody, Bail and House Arrest” the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held as follows: “18.     ... Pursuant to Article 109 § 7 of the CCrP [Code of Criminal Procedure], following a request by an investigator the court may extend an accused’s detention until such time as he and his defence counsel have finished studying the case file and the prosecutor has submitted it to the [trial] court, if upon completion of the pre-trial investigation the accused has been given access to the case file no later than thirty days before the expiry of the maximum period of detention indicated in Article 109 §§   2 and 3 [six, twelve or eighteen months]. In that case the relevant extension order should indicate the exact period for which the extension is made ... 20.     After a court accepts for examination a criminal case in which the defendant is remanded in custody, it should verify whether the time-limit set by a court order for that detention has expired ... The court decision to maintain the applicant in detention [taken after arrival of the criminal case to the court for examination on the merits] should have an indication of the end-date of the defendant’s detention”. 2.     Proceedings before the appeal court 60 .     On 22 January 2004 the Constitutional Court delivered decision no.   66-O on a complaint about the refusal to permit a detainee to attend appeal hearings on the issue of detention. It held: “Article 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulating the presence of a defendant remanded in custody before the appeal court... cannot be read as depriving the defendant held in custody ... of the right to express his opinion to the appeal court, by way of his personal attendance at the hearing or by other lawful means, on matters relating to the examination of his complaint about a judicial decision affecting his constitutional rights and freedoms ...” 61 .     By its decision no. 432-O of 24 November 2005 the Constitutional Court declined to examine a complaint by Mr G. With reference to its previous decisions of 10 December 2002 and 25 March 2004, the Constitutional Court held that convicts, but also others, including suspects in criminal proceedings and those charged with criminal offences and remanded in custody, had to be given the right to bring to the knowledge of the appeal court their position in respect of issues which would be examined by that court either by way of personal participation in the hearing or by other means. This position was later confirmed in its decision no. 538-O of 16 November 2006. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 62.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that her detention between 24 May 2008 and 14 August 2009 had been unlawful because after the expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention pending the investigation the domestic courts had repeatedly extended her detention. The Court decided of its own motion to examine the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention ordered by decision of 14 August 2009. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...” A.     Admissibility 63.     The Court notes that those complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     Submissions by the parties 64.     The applicant maintained her complaints. 65.     The Government submitted that after the expiry of the maximum eighteen-month period of detention the domestic courts had extended the applicant’s detention in accordance with Article 109 §§ 7 and 8 of the CCrP (cited in paragraphs 50 and 51 above), which provided for the possibility of extending a defendant’s detention pending investigation beyond the maximum period on the ground of the need for him or her or to study the case file or when some of his co-defendants had not finished studying the case file. In particular, the extension of the applicant’s detention until 17   February 2009 was necessary to allow her and her counsel to finalise familiarising themselves with the materials of the case. After that date the applicant’s detention was further extended, because some of her co-defendants had not finished familiarising themselves with the materials of the case. Referring to the decisions of the Constitutional Court (cited in paragraphs 56 and 58 above), the Government submitted that the above provisions of the CCrP fully complied with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention since, aside from the need to study the case file, they made such an extension conditional on the existence of relevant and sufficient reasons for continued detention and the impossibility of applying another preventive measure. 66.     The Government further submitted that on 14 August 2009 the domestic court had extended the applicant’s detention in accordance with Article 255 § 2 (cited in paragraph 52 above), which provided that the term of a defendant’s detention after the case has come to court and adoption of the judgment should not exceed six months . Therefore, in its decision the court indicated that the applicant should stay in detention but not beyond 3   February 2010, and thus has set a clear time-limit for the applicant’s detention. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 67.     It is well established in the Court’s case-law under the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1 that any deprivation of liberty must, in addition to falling within one of the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (a)-(f), be “lawful”. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness. It is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1 and the notion of “arbitrariness” in Article 5 §   1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law, but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §   67, ECHR 2008). 68.     The Court must moreover ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein. On this last point, the Court stresses that, where deprivation of liberty is concerned, it is particularly important that the general principle of legal certainty be satisfied. It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of “lawfulness” set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person – if need be, with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v.   Poland , no. 28358/95, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2000-III, and Khudoyorov v. Russia , no. 6847/02, §125, ECHR 2005 ‑ X (extracts)). (b)     Application of these principles in the present case (i)     detention between 24 May 2008 and 14 August 2009 69.     The Court observes that the applicable provisions of domestic law permitted up to eighteen months’ detention during investigation (hereinafter “the maximum detention period”) in respect of individuals accused of particularly serious offences (Article 109 § 3, cited in paragraph 46 above). The domestic law further provided that the period in question could be extended by a judicial decision if the defendant was granted access to the case file no later than thirty days before the expiry of the maximum detention period, and if the thirty-day period proved insufficient for him or her to read the entire file. If several defendants were involved in the proceedings and the thirty-day period was insufficient for at least one of them to read the entire case file within the thirty-day period, the maximum detention period could be extended in respect of those defendants who had completed reading the case file, provided that the necessity for a custodial measure for them persisted and there were no grounds for choosing another preventive measure (Article 109 §§ 5, 7 and 8, cited in paragraphs 48, 50 and 51 above). 70.     In the present case, involving the applicant and twenty-nine co-defendants, the maximum detention period expired on 24 May 2008 (see paragraph 16 above). The applicant was granted access to the case file on 26   October 2007, which was over thirty days before the expiry of the maximum detention period (see paragraphs 13 above), but the thirty-day period proved insufficient for her to read all the volumes of the criminal case. For that reason, at the request of the investigator, on 20 May 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2008. The court relied on Article 109 of the CCrP. 71.     Subsequently, the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention on four occasions for the same purpose and by reference to the same legal provision (see paragraphs 19, 24 and 29 above), bringing the overall duration of the applicant’s detention pending the investigation to thirty-two months and twenty-four days. Each of these extensions was limited to a specific date. 72.     The Court has previously examined a similar situation in the case of Tsarenko v. Russia (no. 5235/09, §§ 60-61, 3 March 2011). The Court applied the following line of reasoning: “60.     In the present case, the eighteen months’ detention of the applicant during the investigation expired on 12 September 2008. Upon request of the investigator, the City Court granted an extension until 4