CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 juillet 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s5F408F10 { width:175.84pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2F7F4368 { width:167.84pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 9896/11 Vladimir Mikhaylovich BULDASHEV against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   July   2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 9896/11, 29945/17 and 48432/17, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is 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”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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 applications nos. 47707/17 and 48432/17, the latest appeals lodged by the applicants against the detention orders were considered and dismissed on 17 February 2016 and 5 July 2016, respectively. The applications were lodged with the Court on 7 June 2017 (application no. 47707/17) and 20 June 2017 (application no. 48432/17), which is more than six months after the examination of the most recent appeals as indicated above. The applicants did not appeal against any subsequent detention orders. It follows that the complaints about the unreasonably long detention on remand raised in applications nos. 47707/17 and 48432/17 should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention raised in the remaining applications, the Court notes the relatively short duration of the pre-trial detention for the majority of the applicants. It further observes that while extending the applicants’ detention the domestic courts had relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated criminal offences, the particular vulnerability of the victims, the complexity of the criminal cases against the applicants and the existence of a serious risk of their absconding or interfering with justice, confirmed, inter alia , by the pattern of their behavior or psychological condition (see Rydz v. Poland , no. 13167/02, 18 December 2007). The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicants were liable to obstruct justice, to re-offend or abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures, but found them to be inadequate at the time. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ continued detention. The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia , no. 46404/13, §§ 96‑107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia , no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v.   Russia , no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia , no.   20756/04, 22 October 2009). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaints raised in applications nos. 9896/11, 29945/17, 51972/17 and 58429/17 are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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 26 July 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Period of detention     9896/11 21/06/2011 Vladimir Mikhaylovich Buldashev 16/05/1952 Ogur Olga Valeryevna Chelyabinsk 26/01/2010 to 28/04/2011     29945/17 11/04/2017 Karen Sergeyevich Krayukhin 13/11/1985 Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg 14/09/2016 to 01/12/2017     47707/17 07/06/2017 Khayam Akram-ogly Gasanov 28/05/1982 Khutiyev Amur Magomed Gireyevich Khanty-Mansiysk 07/11/2014 to 22/01/2017     48432/17 20/06/2017 Pavel Viktorovich Fedotov 09/12/1969 Kirillina Yuliya Vladimirovna Yaroslavl 30/03/2015 pending     51972/17 11/09/2017 Sergey Mikhaylovich Shitikov 19/02/1988     28/07/2015 pending     58429/17 02/08/2017 Ilyas Yunusovich Gasayniyev 25/10/1959     19/11/2016 pending