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 } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s5FFF0A73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:5pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF MAKSUTOV AND OTHERS v.   RUSSIA (Applications nos.   33982/17 and 28 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 July 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Maksutov 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. 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 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.” 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     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 (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages in court hearing rooms; Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of the speedy review of the detention matters; and Korshunov v.   Russia , no.   38971/06, 25   October 2007, as regards the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicants in applications nos.   33982/17, 34627/17, 44472/17 and 45860/17 raised complaints under Article 5 §   1 of the Convention.     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 the complaints are admissible but, since it has already examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications with regard to Article   5 of the Convention, 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). 13.     The applicant in application no.   80092/17 also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v.   Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was an effective remedy, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention alleged in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant’s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of application should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 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, Decides to join the applications; 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, as well as the complaints under Article 5 §   1 of the Convention raised in applications nos.   33982/17, 34627/17, 44472/17 and 45860/17 admissible,   and the remainder of application no.   80092/17 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 is no need to examine the complaints under Article   5   §   1 of the Convention in applications nos.   33982/17, 34627/17, 44472/17 and 45860/17; 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 (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]     33982/17 04/04/2017 Radmir Yusifovich MAKSUTOV 31/03/1984     04/02/2015 to 03/07/2018 Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic, Privolzhskiy Military District Court 3   year(s) and 5   month(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 the applicant’s 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.   4,600     34627/17 17/04/2017 Rustem Ravilevich GALLYAMOV 10/08/1981 Ablayeva Olga Valeryevna Ufa 04/02/2015 to 03/07/2018 Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic, Privolzhskiy Military District Court 3   year(s) and 5   month(s)   The applicant in the present case was a co ‑ defendant in the same criminal proceedings as Mr Maksutov (application no.   33982/17 above) The defects cited for the case of Mr   Maksutov above are fully applicable to applicant in the present case   4,600     41626/17 24/05/2017 Andrey Nikolayevich USHANEV 04/06/1975 Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich Voronezh 23/03/2017 to 12/10/2017 Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court 6   month(s) and 20   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   1,300     42038/17 29/05/2017 Sergey Aleksandrovich ROGOZHIN 02/05/1986 Loktev Sergey Aleksandrovich Lipetsk 15/11/2016 to 14/11/2017 Levoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk, Lipetsk Regional Court 1   year(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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.   1,300     44472/17 17/05/2017 Stanislav Vladimirovich MOLKOV 07/11/1982     10/10/2014 to 30/03/2017 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 2   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 21   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; as the case progressed, 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.   3,400     45860/17 05/06/2017 Timur Narimanovich UZBEKOV 27/03/1990     14/10/2014 to 08/12/2017 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, Privolzhskiy Military District Court 3   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 25   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, in particular taking into account the period for studying the case-file; as the case progressed, 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, such as his lack of financial resources, lack of property outside Russia, absence of travel passport, the state of his health.     4,200     66874/17 04/09/2017 Sergey Viktorovich MESHCHANOV 18/08/1982 Ponomarev Askar Usmanovich Kazan 28/02/2017 to 29/09/2017 Sovtskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 7   month(s) and 2   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 sooner than it has been done.   1,300     69349/17 04/09/2017 Aleksey Yuryevich PARSHIN 10/03/1982 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow 18/12/2010 to 29/05/2017 Vologda Town Court; Vologda Regional Court; St   Petersburg City Court; Moscow City Court 6   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 12   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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.     6,500     69439/17 15/09/2017 Sergey Sergeyevich POLYANSKIY 03/04/1984 Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich Astrakhan 04/04/2016 to 06/04/2017 Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court 1   year(s) and 3   day(s)   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; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   1,400   72445/17 15/09/2017 Vasiliy Vasilyevich ZABOYEV 23/05/1983     30/05/2015 to 20/04/2017 Ukhta Town Court; Ezhvinsk Town Court;   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 1   year(s) and 10   month(s) and 22   day(s)   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; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.   2,700   80092/17 13/11/2017 Sergey Dmitriyevich SHATALKIN 08/02/1963 Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich Krasnodar 11/10/2014 to 07/05/2018 Tuapse Town Court; Krasnodar Regional Court; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 3   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 27   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed.   4,800   2115/18 25/12/2017 Sergey Petrovich POYMANOV 15/02/1972 Zhukov Kirill Sergeyevich Moscow 22/05/2017 to 21/11/2017 Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 6   month(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   1,300   3758/18 20/12/2017 Andrey Alekseyevich LYSHCHIK 10/10/1966 Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 29/05/2017 to 15/11/2019 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don; Rostov Regional Court More than 3   year(s) and 6   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   3,400   5964/18 15/01/2018 Vyacheslav Viktorovich KAZANTSEV 13/08/1966 Belov Dmitriy Olegovich Moscow 17/02/2016 To 10/07/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 4   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 18   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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   6078/18 22/01/2018 Alzhanbek Kazbekovich GIMBATOV 04/04/1996 Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich Moscow 15/06/2016 pending Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow; Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 3   year(s) and 11   month(s) and 20   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal complaint against extension order of 24/07/2017 was examined by the Moscow City Court on 09/10/2017 (77   days); appeal against extension on 01/11/2017 was examined by the Moscow City Court on 22/11/2017 (20   days);     Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant was placed in a metal cage on numerous occasions since 08/02/2017 during the hearings before the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow.   9,750   6151/18 23/01/2018 Mikhail Innokentyevich CHERNYSHEV 18/03/1990 Luneva Natalya Dmitriyevna Noginsk 09/08/2014 to 22/11/2017 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 3   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 14   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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.   4,400   7332/18 11/01/2018 Shamil Magomedovich GAMIDOV 07/09/1981 Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 03/06/2016 to 19/02/2020 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don, Rostov Regional Court More than 4   year(s) and 1   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   5,100   8813/18 07/02/2018 Anton Vladimirovich BORDOVSKIY 28/01/1966 Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich Moscow 05/06/2015 to 21/11/2018 Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow; 3   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 17   day(s)   Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal decision of 28/11/2017 upheld the detention order of 26/10/2017, with the examination thus having taken almost a   month;     Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 6,100   11688/18 27/02/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich LYSENKO 19/06/1962 Lysenko Yekaterina Sergeyevna Kaliningrad 04/10/2017 pending Guryevskiy District Court of Kaliningrad; Kaliningrad Regional Court More than 2   year(s) and 8   month(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   3,600   11976/18 26/02/2018 Anatoliy Ivanovich SKOROVAROV 18/10/1956 Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 28/04/2017 pending Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don; Rostov Regional Court More than 3   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 7   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   4,200   13288/18 03/03/2018 Sevak Lenyayevich VARDANYAN 01/09/1986 Dolgoborodova Galina Nikolayevna St   Petersburg 19/08/2015 to 26/01/2018 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St   Petersburg; St   Petersburg City Court 2   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 8   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   3,400   13715/18 12/03/2018 Yuriy Sergeyevich RESHETNIKOV 08/04/1986 Zhelonkina Yelena Nikolayevna Penza 28/11/2017 pending Military Court of 235 th Garrison; Moscow Circuit Military Court More than 2   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 5   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   3,500   14480/18 12/03/2018 Dmitriy Nikolayevich CHEKMAREV 01/08/1989 Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich Nizhniy Novgorod 23/03/2017 to 03/08/2018 Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 1   year(s) and 4   month(s) and 12   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   2,000   29950/18 24/05/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich SIDORETS 29/08/1976     01/03/2012 to 29/10/2018 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 6   year(s) and 7   month(s) and 29   day(s)   Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   6,500   40558/18 19/11/2018 Yevgeniy Andreyevich IBETOV 24/01/1991     28/02/2018 pending Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court More than 2   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 7   day(s)   Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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.   3,100   45663/18 10/09/2018 Aleksey Ivanovich LOBOV 25/11/1980 Podoplelova Olga Germanovna Moscow 15/02/2018 to 15/02/2019 Presnensky District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 1   year(s) and 1   day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; 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.   1,400   55018/18 09/11/2018 Dmitriy Viktorovich SAZONOV 16/10/1971 Taraborin Dmitriy Alekseyevich Samara 25/07/2018 pending Samara District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court More than 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 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.   2,700   12258/19 04/02/2019 Igor Viktorovich BAZHIN 10/06/1977     01/09/2017 to 25/10/2018 Manskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 25   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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   1,600   17245/19 18/03/2019 Marks-Agness Vladimirovna KALASHNIK-SAVELCHENKO 09/09/1990 Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna Rostov-on-Don 27/11/2017 pending Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region; Rostov Regional Court More than 2   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 8   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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.