CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s5F408F10 { width:175.84pt; 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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sB2C760B2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF DIKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 10179/05 and 26 others - see appended list )         JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 13 October 2021 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     STRASBOURG 30 July 2020       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dikin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2020, 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.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 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.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT CERTAIN APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no.   51693/18 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike that application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). 7.     The Government also provided unilateral declarations in application no. 18170/18 (covering a part of the applicant’s complaints under Article   5 §   4 about excessive length of judicial review of detention, acknowledging a violation of that Convention provision and offering to pay 500 euros (EUR), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount to the applicant) and in application no. 10179/05 (acknowledging a violation of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s complaints about poor conditions of his detention and offering to pay the applicant EUR 10,750, plus ay tax that may be chargeable to him on that amount). The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. 8.     The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. 9.     Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , cited above). 10.     The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention and lack of speedy review of the detention matters (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, 22 May 2012, and Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08, 28   November 2013). 11.     Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of applications nos.   18170/18 and 10179/05 in the abovementioned parts (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 12.     In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of applications nos.   18170/18 and 10179/05 in the relevant parts (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). 13.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). 14.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out of the list applications nos.   18170/18 and 10179/05 in the parts covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   5   §   3 “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.” 16.     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). 17.     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. 18.     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. 19.     As regards application no. 53026/18, the Court would like to stress, in particular, that this is the second application lodged by the applicant Mr   Shakhman concerning one and the same lengthy detention on remand period. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the first application (no. 14416/17) lodged by the applicant concerning his on-going unreasonably long detention on remand starting on 4 October 2016 (see Pavlov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 24715/16 and 7 others, 11 January 2018). Following that judgment, Mr   Shakhman remained in detention pending the trial proceedings against him and until his release on 11 September 2018. In November 2018 he lodged the present application with the Court. 20.     In this respect the Court reiterates that in the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which the Court found a violation of that right during a certain period, it is not unusual for the Court to examine a second application concerning a violation of the same right during the subsequent period (see Wasserman v.   Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 33, 10 April 2008, with further references). 21.     The Court observes that the first application (no. 14416/17) concerned the applicant’s excessively long detention on remand. When the Court delivered its judgment on 11 January 2018, having found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and having made an award in respect of the period preceding its judgment, the applicant was still in detention on remand. 22.     The present application, which the applicant lodged in November 2018, concerns his continuous detention on remand in the period subsequent to the Court’s judgment of 11 January 2018. 23.     The Court acknowledges that it has no jurisdiction to review the measures adopted in the domestic legal order to put an end to the violations found in its judgment in the first case brought by the applicant. It may, nevertheless, take stock of subsequent factual developments. In this respect, the Court observes that the applicant continued to be detained for another eight months after the Court had delivered its judgment in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Wasserman (no. 2), cited above, § 36). 24.     It follows that, in so far as the applicant’s complaint concerns the further period during which he continued to be detained on remand allegedly in the absence of proper reasons for that, it has not been previously examined by the Court. The Court therefore has competence ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain this complaint. Moreover, when assessing the reasonableness of the remaining period between 11 January and 11 September 2018 for the purposes of Article 5   §   3 of the Convention, the Court “can take into consideration the fact that an applicant has previously spent time in custody pending trial” (see Idalov v.   Russi a [GC], no. 5826/03, § 130, 22 May 2012). 25.     Reverting to all applications in the present case, and 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. 26.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 27.     In some applications, 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 its case-law ( Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement of applicants in metal cages during hearings in court rooms; Idalov v. Russia [GC], cited above, concerning lack of speedy review of detention matters; and Alekhin v. Russia , no. 10638/08, 30 July 2009, regarding lack of, or inadequate, compensation in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and to a delay in examination of an appeal against an extension order, as required by Article 5 §   5 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 28.     In some applications the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. In particular, the applicants in applications nos. 28828/17, 28882/17 and 29901/17 complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about excessively lengthy detention in violation of domestic law. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications with regard to Article 5 of the Convention. It thus considers that the applicants’ complaints are admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 29.     The Court further has examined additional complaints raised in applications nos.   10179/05, 18170/18, 4816/19, 1922/19. It 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 applications nos. 10179/05, 18170/18, 4816/19, 1922/19 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 30.     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.” 31.     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. 32.     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, Decides to join the applications; Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 51693/18 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted; Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declarations in respect of cases nos. 10179/05 and 18170/18, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike application no.   18170/18, in the part concerning the excessive length of judicial review of detention, and application no.   10179/05, in the part concerning the conditions of detention, out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, as well as the complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos.   28828/17, 28882/17 and 29901/17 admissible,   and the remainder of applications nos.   10179/05, 18170/18, 4816/19, and 1922/19 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article   5   §   1 of the Convention in applications nos.   28828/17, 28882/17 and 29901/17; 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 July 2020, 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]     10179/05 21/02/2005 Aleksandr Vitalyevich   DIKIN 02/02/1972 Dikin Denis Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod 18/06/2004 to 04/08/2006 Bogorodsk Town Court; Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 2 year(s)   and 1 month(s) and 18 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.   10,750 (under the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government)   2,900 (under the present judgment)     28828/17 30/03/2017 Artur Raulevich SALIMOV 05/09/1986     04/02/2015 to 30/07/2018 Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa; the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)   Collective detention orders; the applicant’s detention pending the examination of the case file lasted for almost a year. The Government did not argue that the prolonged period of the applicant’s examination of the case file in his case was due to any objective reasons (such as the volume of the case file). Neither did the domestic courts examine whether there had been any delays attributable to the investigating authorities. There were no attempts on the part of the domestic authorities to speed up the applicant’s examination of the case file by making new arrangements. Moreover, the protracted length of that examination process evidently benefited the investigating authorities, who completed their investigation in the meantime. The trial of the applicant’s case lasted for almost a year. Although there could have existed relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s detention at some stages of the proceedings, the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and specific justification for the continued application of the measure of restraint, coupled with the lack of diligence on their part.   4,700     28882/17 29/03/2017 Danis Miratovich FAYZRAKHMANOV 04/09/1988     04/02/2015 to 30/07/2018 Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa; the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)   Collective detention orders; the applicant in the present case was a co-defendant in the case of Mr   Salimov (see application no. 28828/17 above). The findings of the Court in Mr   Salimov’s case as regards specific defects are fully applicable to the present case.   4,700     29901/17 27/03/2017 Rinat Ranifovich NURLYGAYANOV 03/01/1991     04/02/2015 to 30/07/2018 Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa; the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s) Collective detention orders; the applicant in the present case was a co-defendant in the case of Mr Salimov (see application no. 28828/17 above). The findings of the Court in Mr Salimov’s case as regards specific defects are fully applicable to the present case.   4,700     18170/18 09/04/2018 Magomedkamil Magomedzapirovich [2] MANSUROV 05/05/1987 Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich Moscow 15/02/2018 to 30/03/2020 Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 1 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   500 (under the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government)   3,200 (under the present judgment)     38349/18 06/08/2018 Maksim Mikhaylovich BATISHCHEV 30/07/1989 Kopteyeva Anastasiya Vladimirovna Chita 12/10/2016 to 21/08/2018 Mogochinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region; Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,700     39183/18 15/08/2018 Oksana Viktorovna KRAVCHENKO 28/01/1974 Bulysov Roman Yevgenyevich Moscow 17/02/2016 to 10/07/2019 Basmanniy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow; Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow; appeal: Moscow City Court 3 year(s)   and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)   Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.   4,600     42639/18 28/08/2018 Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich STASHCHENKO 29/03/1995 Uporov Igor Nikolayevich Yekaterinburg 14/03/2016 to 27/11/2018 Severouralsk Town Court; Nizhnetagilskiy Garrison Court; Sverdlovsk Regional Court; Uralskiy Military District Court 2 year(s)   and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   3,800     46290/18 27/08/2018 Ivan Viktorovich BUFTYAK 18/08/1988     20/08/2014 to 02/04/2020 Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region; Noginsk Town Court; Moscow Regional Court 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 14 day(s)   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; collective detention orders.   6,500   46746/18 04/02/2019 Andrey Sergeyevich GOBUZOV 16/06/1981     17/01/2018 to 06/05/2019 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 20 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts. Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk at a number of hearings from 27/04/2018 to 31/10/2018. 9,750   49702/18 09/10/2018 Emin Orudzhali ogly GAMIDOV 07/10/1985     23/01/2018 to 24/12/2019 Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court 2 year(s)   and 2 month(s) and 11 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.   2,600   51467/18 30/10/2018 Olga Mikhaylovna FROLOVA 30/05/1980 Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich Moscow 16/10/2016 To 20/06/2019 Tambov Regional Court More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts on charges of fraud (commercial activity); failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal review of Tambov Regional Court on 10/08/2018 (66 days after the extension order of 19/06/2018); extension order of 21/09/2018 was examined on 31/10/2018 (40 days); extension order of 16/11/2018 was examined on 26/12/2018 (40   days); extension order of 01/11/2018 was examined on 11/12/2018 (40 days). 4,900   51693/18 23/10/2018 Vladimir Vladimirovich SOBOLEV 30/06/1975     09/10/2013 to 18/07/2017       05/06/2018 to 13/12/2018 Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 3 year(s)   and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)     6 month(s) and 9 day(s) Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; 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.   5,700   52182/18 25/10/2018 Vasiliy Sergeyevich USTINOV 25/04/1984 Aleksandrova Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Krasnodar 09/06/2017 to 19/03/2020 Prikubansky District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 11 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; white-collar crime; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,900   52473/18 25/10/2018 Yelena Valentinovna SELIVERSTOVA 02/01/1971     08/10/2014 to 04/09/2018 Samarskiy District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 28 day(s)   Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly as the case progressed; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   5,300   53026/18 02/11/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich SHAKHMAN 29/08/1973 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow 04/10/2016 to 11/09/2018 Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s)   Collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention starting on 04/10/2016 (see Pavlov and Others v. Russia , [Committee], nos. 24715/16 and 7   others, 11   January 2018). The applicant, nevertheless, stayed in pre-trial detention after the Court’s judgment of 11/01/2018 until the investigator’s decision of 11/09/2018 to release him. Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation in conjunction with Article 5 (1) and Article 5 (4) of the Convention – in particular, lack of compensation for unlawful arrest or detention in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and to a delay in examination of an appeal against an extension order (see Alekhin v. Russia , no.   10638/08, §§   148-155, 30   July 2009);       Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention- the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Savelovksiy District Court of Moscow of 21/06/2018 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 30/07/2018 ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012) 1,400   58185/18 07/12/2018 Grigoriy Ulyanovich PIRUMOV 09/06/1962 Zykov Andrey Leonidovich Moscow 17/05/2018 to 12/08/2019 Basmanniy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 2 year(s) and 17 day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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.   1,700   59010/18 30/11/2018 Andrey Valentinovich UTKIN 23/11/1966 Polozov Kirill Borisovich Moscow 05/12/2017 to 16/08/2019 Leninskiy Distrcit Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court 1 year(s) and 8 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint in relation to a charge for a non-violent crime.   2,500   1107/19 13/12/2018 Aleksandr Petrovich DOLMATOV 12/05/1977 Aksenova Yuliya Vladimirovna Volgograd 14/05/2015 to 25/07/2018 Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 12 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   4,300   1922/19 12/12/2018 Denis Bakhodirzhonovich GULAMOV 21/02/1986 Urychev Aleksandr Vitalyevich Chelyabinsk 15/06/2017 to 13/04/2020 Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic; Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk; Novosibirsk Regional Court; Chelyabinsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders. Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms during the hearings in Novosibirsk Regional Court and Tsentralniy District Court of Novosibirsk 9,750   2404/19 13/12/2018 Vladimir Vladimirovich SURKOV 28/04/1983 Aksenova Yuliya Vladimirovna Volgograd 21/05/2015 to 25/07/2018 Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 5 day(s) Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   4,300   4780/19 10/01/2019 Pavel Nikolayevich PETROV 13/07/1985 Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich Astrakhan 20/04/2018 to 17/07/2019 Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan; Volodarskiy District Court of Astrakhan Region; Astrakhan Regional Court More than 2 year(s)   and 1 month(s) and 14 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; collective detention orders.   1,700   4781/19 10/12/2018 Yuliya Anatolyevna VERPEKINA 30/11/1986     21/02/2018 pending Leninsky District Court of the Stavropol Region; the Stavropol Regional Court 2 year(s)   and 1 month(s) and 13 day(s) Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   3,100   4816/19 14/12/2018 Nataliya Igorevna KOZHANOVA 30/08/1955 Vladimirov Andrey Vladimirovich Yoshkar-Ola 13/04/2017 pending Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 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.   4,200   5441/19 04/01/2019 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich NIKOLAYENKO 19/02/1980 Solovyev Yuriy Germanovich St Petersburg 30/05/2018 pending St Petersburg City Court; Kuybyshevsky District Court of St Petersburg 1 year(s)   and 10 month(s) and 3 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – 30   days for judicial review of the detention order of 01/06/2018, appealed on 04/06/2018, which was examined by the St   Petersburg City Court on 04/07/2018. 3,500   6416/19 10/01/2019 Ruslan Makhmudovich GADZHIYEV 27/12/1985 Klyubin Sergey Nikolayevich Velikiy Novgorod 19/05/2018 to 13/03/2019 Novgorod District Court of the Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court 9 month(s) and 23 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.   1,300   6731/19 27/12/2018 Yuriy Aleksandrovich LOSKUTOV 16/11/1989     10/10/2017 pending Nevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg; Kolpinskiy District Court of St   Petersburg; St   Petersburg City Court More than 2 year(s)   and 7 month(s) and 24 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   3,600   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Rectified on 13 October 2021: the text was “Kamil Zapirovich”.