CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; 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 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .s64FC8A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:3pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION         CASE OF ANANCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7026/10 and 25 others - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     This version was rectified on 17 September 2019 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     STRASBOURG   21 February 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ananchev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 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.     Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 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. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention, which read as follows:   “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. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In applications nos.   7026/10, 50230/15, 38251/17 and 70735/17, 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 152-158, 22 May 2012, concerning delays in review of detention, and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia , nos.   27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, regarding absence of detainees from civil proceedings. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   41269/17, 46650/17, 72606/17 and 73045/17 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     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.   V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the applications nos.   41269/17, 46650/17, 72606/17 and 73045/17 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   6.   Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   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’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     7026/10 11/01/2010 Dmitriy Nikolayevich Ananchev 05/11/1980     30/01/2009 to 18/02/2010 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 20 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to attend court hearings in his tort proceedings against the State before the first-instance court, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (judgment of 13/05/2013), and appeal court, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (judgment of 11/12/2013) 2,600     63685/14 02/09/2014 Igor Vladimirovich Shchenikov 07/05/1979 Shprits Yevgeniy Viktorovich Yaroslavl 26/10/2013 to 19/10/2015 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.       2,600     50230/15 06/10/2015 Aleksandr Vadimovich Khoroshavin 26/11/1959 Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg 04/03/2015 to 09/02/2018 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 6 day(s)   Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed appeal review of detention renewals: 24/05/2016 Moscow City Court – Appeal 05/07/2016 Moscow City Court; 04/03/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 06/04/2015 Moscow City Court; 22/04/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 24/06/2015 Moscow City Court; 24/08/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 05/10/2015 Moscow City Court; 25/11/2015 Moscow City Court – Appeal 03/02/2016 Moscow City Court 5,100     9712/17 24/01/2017 Konstantin Igorevich Ramzin 16/07/1990 Sokalskiy Boris Borisovich Moscow 28/04/2015 to 21/03/2017 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow Regional Court 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.     2,700     38251/17 15/05/2017 Viktor Ivanovich Filatov 27/10/1961 Minina Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow   Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich Moscow [2] 29/06/2015 Pending. Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Meshchanskiy District Court, Supreme Court of Russia More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 10 day(s)   Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention order of 27/09/2016, appeal review on 15/11/2016 6,300     41269/17 30/05/2017 Arman Slavikovich Ayrapetyan 21/07/1977 Yermakova Galina Alekseyevna Vladivostok 01/10/2014 to 05/02/2018 Ussuriysk Town Court of the Primorye Region; Primorye Regional Court 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   4,600     46292/17 14/06/2017 Aleksandr Olegovich Ebingard 25/11/1988     17/09/2015 to 12/02/2018 Syktyvkar Town Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 27 day(s)   Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as cased progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   3,300     46650/17 02/06/2017 Denis Igorevich Armyakov 22/04/1979     12/12/2012 Pending. Syktyvkar Town Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic More than 6 year(s) and 27 day(s)   Collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   7,900     48129/17 29/05/2017 Konstantin Ivanovich Mashnin 27/12/1979     20/01/2016 Pending. Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskyy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed.   3,900   48492/17 26/05/2017 Farid Ramazanovich Mustafayev 08/07/1987     04/02/2015 to 30/07/2018 Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit; Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)   Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.     4,700   49572/17 11/06/2017 Konstantin Viktorovich Voronov 28/12/1983     20/06/2015 to 28/06/2017 Yugorskiy District Court of theKhanty Mansy Autonomous Region; Khanty-Mansy District Court of the Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region; Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Regional Court of Yugra 2 year(s) and 9 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.   2,700   60773/17 10/08/2017 Anatoliy Nikolayevich Livada 21/04/1953 Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 27/03/2017 Pending. Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.   2,600   64359/17 17/08/2017 Ilnar Marselyevich Abdulmanov 27/11/1980     07/02/2017 Pending. Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.       2,600   64589/17 21/08/2017 Yuriy Ivanovich Kucherenko 15/04/1983 Kucherenko Roman Ivanovich Stavropol 03/03/2017 to 19/11/2017 Promyshlennyy District Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   1,300   68736/17 05/09/2017 Mikhail Nikolayevich Belyayev 15/10/1968 Okushko Tatyana Borisovna Moscow 20/02/2017 Pending. Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)   Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,700   70196/17 10/09/2017 Vladimir Leonidovich Korostelev 08/02/1950     07/10/2015 Pending. Supreme Court of the Komi Republic More than 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   4,400   70735/17 01/09/2017 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Aydakin 25/02/1998 Filonova Oksana Gennadyevna Sarov 21/03/2017 to 16/06/2017 Sarov Town Court; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 2 month(s) and 27 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the request for a change of the measure of restraint dismissed by decision of the Sarov Town Court of 06/04/2017 was not examined on appeal. Decision of 21/04/2017 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court which noted that such a decision was not amenable to an appeal as it was issued while the criminal proceedings were still pending and that it could only be resolved when the trial court was to determine the merits of the charges in the final court judgment. However, it was examined by the cassation instance court on 29/06/2017 - that is more than 2 months later. 500   72606/17 29/09/2017 Viktor Ivanovich Abrosichkin 03/02/1952 Gusakov Aleksandr Ivanovich Moscow 01/02/2017 Pending. Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s)   Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.   2,600   73045/17 03/10/2017 Maksim Andreyevich Alekseyenko 10/11/1981     22/03/2017 Pending. Moscow District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court More than 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 17 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   2,600   75119/17 18/10/2017 Khadidzha Ruslanovna Khamkhoyeva 25/05/1992 Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna Moscow 29/01/2017 to 13/04/2018 Prigorodnyy District Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic; Supreme Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   1,700   76640/17 02/10/2017 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Sementsov 19/01/1980     27/04/2013 to 29/12/2015   20/07/2016 Pending. Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok; Ussuriysk District Court of the Primorye Region; Primorye Regional Court 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)   More than 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 19 day(s) Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   6,800   77729/17 30/10/2017 Denis Vladimirovich Irza 01/10/1982 Abubakarov Magamed Saltanmuratovich Nalchik 16/04/2015 Pending. Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic and Prokhladnenskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic; Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   5,100   79395/17 07/11/2017 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Semenov 02/04/1984     02/11/2016 to 10/10/2017 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 11 month(s) and 9 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.   1,300   80186/17 23/10/2017 Roman Vladimirovich Chernoknizhnyy 31/01/1979     01/03/2012 Pending. Syktyvkar Town Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic More than 6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)   Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders.         9,200   80336/17 14/11/2017 Ruslan Andreyevich Piotrovskiy 12/10/1988 Rassokhin Artem Aleksandrovich St Petersburg 02/05/2017 to 05/04/2018 Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court 11 month(s) and 4 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   1,300   80395/17 13/11/2017 Maksim Anatolyevich Kopytkov 02/06/1985     06/12/2016 Pending. Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   2,900     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] .     Rectified on 17 September 2019, information about the second representative, Mr Izhikov, was added.