CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s62BA9D11 { width:191.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 76650/13 Andrey Borisovich YEFIMENKO against Russia and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   November 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the alleged violations of the Convention. In particular, in application no. 76650/13 the latest detention order in the applicant’s criminal proceedings in respect of which he brought an appeal was the decision of the Iskitimskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region dated 20 February 2013. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on 18   March   2013. The application was lodged with the Court on 25   October 2013, which is more than six months later. It follows that the case should be rejected as having been lodged out of time, in accordance with Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. The Court notes that in application no. 13875/14 the applicant’s detention order of the Gornomariyskiy District Court of the Republic of Mary El dated 14 May was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mary El on 23   May   2013. The case was lodged with the Court on 23 December 2013, which is more than six months later. It follows that the case should be rejected as having been lodged out of time, in accordance with Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. In application no. 13879/14 the applicant’s detention order dated 9   November 2012 was upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 15 November 2012, whereas the case was lodged with the Court on 31   January 2014, which is more than six months later. It follows that this case should be rejected as having been lodged out of time, in accordance with Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. In application no. 51213/14, the Court notes that the applicant’s detention on remand lasted slightly over two months, from 22 January to 24   March 2014, following which the applicant was released. Given the motivation for the relatively short duration of the arrest, namely the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in an aggravated crime committed in an organised group and the statements of the victims heard in court regarding the threats received in the course of the proceedings, it cannot be said that the domestic courts had failed duly to consider all the relevant factors, that they did not give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicant’s continued detention, or that they failed to display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Topekhin v.   Russia , no. 78774/13, §§ 102-110, 10 May 2016). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 8 December 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Period of detention Length of detention     76650/13 25/10/2013 Andrey Borisovich YEFIMENKO 03/02/1983     01/11/2012 pending   More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)       13875/14 23/12/2013 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ARKHIPOV 02/07/1969     12/05/2013 pending   More than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 10 day(s)       13879/14 31/01/2014 Nikolay Ilyich SADOVYY 01/02/1958 Skibin Vladimir Aleksandrovich Krasnodar 28/11/2011 to 12/07/2013   1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s)       51213/14 28/06/2014 Kseniya Aleksandrovna SBORNOVA 13/05/1987 Batyants Samvel Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod 22/01/2014 to 24/03/2014   2 month(s) and 3 day(s)