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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sF2EF8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s89D26081 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .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 } .sF7147D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:5pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION   CASE OF BONDAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 80259/17 and 18 others - see appended list )         JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 29 March 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 Bondar 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.     As concerns applications nos. 80259/17, 40110/18, 40501/18, 44119/18, 44332/18 and 44737/18, the Court would like to stress that these are the second applications lodged by Mr Bondar, Mr   Stepanenko, Mr   Popov, Mr Yevtikheyev, Mr   Dilabirov and Mr   Khamidullin, respectively, concerning the same lengthy detention on remand. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, on account of their unreasonably long detention on remand in respect of their first applications:   First application (no. and introduction date) Applicant’s name Judgment of the Court finding a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 52460/13 11/07/2013 Mr Bondar Mayevskiy and others v. Russia [Committee] , nos. 5403/07 and 5 others, 24 November 2016 32887/17 01/04/2017 Mr Stepanenko Belousov and others v. Russia [Committee] , nos. 65302/16 and 2 others, 28 June 2018 29351/16 05/05/2016 Mr Popov Chernova and others v. Russia [Committee] , nos. 20443/06 and 7 others, 12 October 2017 43735/16 22/07/2016 Mr Yevtikheyev Levin and others v. Russia [Committee] , nos. 29584/05 and 8 others, 11 January 2018 6690/17 08/12/2016 Mr Dilabirov Pavlov and others v. Russia [Committee] , nos. 24715/16 and 7 others, 11 January 2018 63096/16 21/10/2016 Mr Khamidullin Sobolev and others v. Russia, [Committee] , nos. 45057/06 and 6 others, 9 November 2017   Following these judgments by the Court, the applicants either remained in detention pending trial proceedings against them until their conviction or were placed in pre-trial detention de novo following the quashing of the trial judgments against them by the appeal courts. On different dates, falling within six   months from the applicants’ conviction, the applicants lodged the present applications with the Court (for further details see the appended table below). 9.     In applications nos. 80259/17, 44332/18 and 44737/18 the Government did not submit any observations in this respect, having merely noted that the documents available to the Court were sufficient to assess the cases properly. As regards applications nos. 40110/18 and 44119/18, the Government mentioned the Court’s previous judgments finding a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the applicants’ first applications (see the table above) and argued that the reasons for further extension of the applicants’ pre-trial detention were relevant and sufficient. Finally, in application no. 40501/18 the Government claimed that the Court had already examined the period of the applicant’s detention from September 2013 to July 2017 and that the application in that part was in any event belated. In view of these observations the Court reiterates that in principle there is nothing to prevent the Court from examining a subsequent application raising a new issue undecided by the original judgment (see Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV; Pailot v.   France , 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions   1998 ‑ II; Leterme v. France , 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Rando v. Italy , no. 38498/97, 15 February 2000). 10.     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). 11.     The Court observes that the first applications lodged by the six applicants (see the table above) concerned their excessively long detention on remand. When the Court delivered its respective judgments, finding a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and making an award in respect of the period preceding its judgments, the applicants, except for Mr Popov (first application no. 29351/16) were still in detention on remand. Mr Popov was first convicted on 10 July 2017, shortly before the delivery of the judgment by the Court in his case (see Chernova and others , cited above). On 15 February 2018 the trial judgment against him was quashed and the applicant was de novo placed in detention on remand. 12.     The present applications, which the applicants lodged on various dates, specified in the appended table below, concern their detention on remand in the period subsequent to the Court’s judgments in their first applications. 13.     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 judgments in the first cases brought by the applicants. It may, nevertheless, take stock of subsequent factual developments. In this respect, the Court observes that the applicants continued to be detained or were detained anew following quashing of their initial trial judgments after the Court had delivered the abovementioned judgments in those cases (see, mutatis mutandis , Wasserman (no. 2), cited above, § 36). 14.     It follows that, in so far as the applicants’ complaints concerns the further periods of detention on remand allegedly in the absence of proper reasons therefor, they have not been previously examined by the Court. The Court therefore has competence ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain these complaints. 15.     Moreover, when assessing the reasonableness of the period between the delivery of the Court’s judgments (see paragraph 8 above) and the end of the applicants’ detention on remand 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.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 130, 22 May 2012; for similar approach by the Court see Kolosyuk and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 45162/13 and 4 others, 14 June 2018). 16.     As concerns all applications in the present case, the Court notes that in the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27   November 2012, it already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 17.     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 rejects the Government’s objections made in the present applications and considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 18.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 19.     In applications nos.   82926/17, 8027/18, 8764/18, 40501/18 and 44119/18 the applicants also submitted complaints under Article 5 §   4 of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 2742/18 alleged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see details in the 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 , cited above, §§   154-58, in view of the lack of a speedy review of detention matters, and in the light of its findings in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), in view of the violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of placement of a person standing trial in a metal cage during court hearings. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 20.     In applications nos. 8027/18 and 40110/18 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 21.     The Court has examined these applications 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 applications nos. 8027/18 and 40110/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     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.” 23.     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. 24.     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, admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos.   8027/18 and 40110/18 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 (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   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]     80259/17 12/11/2017 Sergey Nikolayevich BONDAR 06/07/1976 16/03/2012 to 29/10/2018   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 6   year(s) and 7   month(s) and 14   day(s) By the final judgment of 24/11/2016 the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention within the same set of the criminal proceedings. Starting from his arrest and following the Court’s judgment of 24/11/2016 the applicant continued being detained on remand with his detention regularly extended until his conviction on 29/10/2018 (see §§   8 ‑ 15 above).   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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   2,600     82926/17 24/11/2017 Vyacheslav Anatolyevich POPENKOV 10/03/1988 03/04/2013 to 13/12/2017 Rostov Regional Court; Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov 4   year(s) and 8   month(s) and 11   day(s)   collective detention orders; 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The appeal against the decision extending the applicant’s detention of 13/02/2017 was examined on 03/04/2017; the appeal against decision extending the applicant’s detention of 06/06/2017 was examined on 31/08/2017 8,300     2742/18 03/01/2018 Konstantin Vasilyevich DAKHNO 19/09/1971 28/04/2016 to 03/08/2017 Kuybyshevskiy and Tsentralniy District Courts of Omsk, Omsk Regional Court 1   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 7   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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice. Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage on multiple occasions during trial hearings (trial judgment of the Tsentralniy District Court of Omsk of 03/08/2017) 9,750     2827/18 20/12/2017 Marat Rafikovich DINDAROV 20/05/1978 22/03/2016 to 28/12/2017 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 1   year(s) and 9   month(s) and 7   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.   2,600     7542/18 15/01/2018 Said Kamolovich SAIDAKHMEDOV 26/07/1983 [1] 09/09/2015 to 30/04/2019 Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3   year(s) and 7   month(s) and 22   day(s) 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.   4,900     8027/18 05/01/2018 Zulfat Alfatovich SABIRZYANOV 15/11/1988 14/03/2017 to 05/02/2020 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2   year(s) and 10   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, particularly 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. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – the applicant’s appeals against the decisions extending his detention of 03/05/2017 and 30/10/2017 were examined on appeal on 09/06/2017 and 12/12/2017 respectively 5,200     8764/18 05/02/2018 Vitaliy Vladimirovich UMERENKOV 19/10/1979 17/11/2015 to 14/06/2018 Leninskiy and Proletarskiy District Courts of Rostov-on-Don; Rostov Regional Court 2   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 29   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – the appeals against the decision extending the applicant’s detention of 30/08/2017 and 29/11/2017 were examined on appeal on 05/10/2017 and 10/01/2018 respectively 4,600     12306/18 22/02/2018 Sergey Viktorovich KONNOV 29/05/1980 17/09/2015 to 29/03/2019 Slavyanskiy Town Court of the Krasnodar Region; Krasnodar Regional Court 3   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 13   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, particularly as the case progressed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.   4,800     12592/18 07/02/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich YAROSLAVSKIY 29/07/1984 16/06/2016 to 08/02/2018 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1   year(s) and 7   month(s) and 24   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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, particularly as the case progressed.   2,300   18650/18 20/08/2018 Daniyar Yakubzhanovich SATTAROV 18/10/1993 21/10/2015 to 25/04/2019 Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 3   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 5   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.   4,800   25691/18 16/04/2018 Pavel Aleksandrovich ELKIND 10/03/1988 16/08/2013 to 30/06/2015   10/02/2016 to 07/08/2018 Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court;     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 4   year(s) and 4   month(s) and 14   day(s)       collective detention orders; 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 as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.   5,900   29733/18 05/06/2018 Mikhail Mikhaylovich BUGLOV 18/11/1993 15/11/2017 to 29/08/2018 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don, Rostov Regional Court 9   month(s) and 15   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.   1,300   40110/18 09/08/2018 Pavel Yuryevich STEPANENKO 16/11/1976 19/03/2016 to 20/08/2018 Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court 2   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 2   day(s)   By final judgment of 28/06/2018 the Court already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention within the same set of the criminal proceedings. Following the Court’s judgment of 28/06/2018 the applicant continued being detained on remand until his conviction on 20/08/2018 (see §§   8-15 above).   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.   400   40501/18 09/08/2018 Aleksandr Leonidovich POPOV 04/08/1975 17/09/2013 to 10/07/2017;   15/02/2018 to 25/06/2018 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia 3   year(s) and 9   month(s) and 24   day(s)   4   month(s) and 11   day(s) By final judgment of 12/10/2017 the Court already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention within the same set of the criminal proceedings. On 10/07/2017, shortly before the Court’s judgment was delivered, the applicant was convicted. On 15/02/2018 the appeal court quashed the applicant’s conviction; remanded the applicant in custody until he was again convicted on 25/06/2018 (see §§   8-15 above).   Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – On 10/04/2018 the appeal court rejected, without examination, the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 29/03/2018 by which the applicant’s request to change his measure of restrain was denied. 700   42590/18 23/08/2018 Aleksandr Nikolayevich IVANOV 14/05/1985 22/11/2016 to 19/02/2019 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Aviastroitelniy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan   2   year(s) and 2   month(s) and 29   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.   3,000   43795/18 27/08/2018 Aleksey Igorevich KIRILOVICH 28/08/1985 10/07/2015 to 02/10/2018 Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemorovo; Kemerovo Regional Court 3   year(s) and 2   month(s) and 23   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, particularly 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.   4,300   44119/18 31/08/2018 Konstantin Sergeyevich YEVTIKHEYEV 05/04/1984 09/09/2014 to 19/10/2018 Primorskyy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 4   year(s) and 1   month(s) and 11   day(s)   By final judgment of 11/01/2018 the Court already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention within the same set of the criminal proceedings. Following the Court’s judgment of 11/01/2018 the applicant continued being detained on remand with his detention regularly extended until his conviction on 19/10/2018 (see §§ 8-15 above).   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. Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – decisions extending the applicant’s detention of 11/04/2018 and 27/06/2018 were examined on appeal on 10/05/2018 and 19/07/2018, respectively 1,700   44332/18 05/09/2018 Vadim Rishatovich DILABIROV 16/08/1984 06/03/2013 to 30/06/2015   10/02/2016 to 07/08/2018 Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court;     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 25   day(s)   2   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 29   day(s)   By final judgment of 11/01/2018 the Court already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention within the same set of the criminal proceedings. From his arrest on 06/03/2013 to his conviction on 30/06/2015 and from 10/02/2016 when his conviction was quashed to the date of delivery the Court’s judgment of 11/01/2018 the applicant continued being detained on remand with his detention regularly extended until his conviction on 07/08/2018 (see §§ 8-15 above).   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; as the case progressed failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.   1,300   44737/18 08/09/2018 Radik Nailevich KHAMIDULLIN 29/01/1985 12/10/2013 to 30/06/2015   10/02/2016 to 07/08/2018 Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court;     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 1   year(s) and 8   month(s) and 19   day(s)   2   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 29   day(s)   By final judgment of 09/11/2017 the Court already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention within the same set of the criminal proceedings. From his arrest on 12/10/2013 to his conviction on 30/06/2015 and from 10/02/2016 when his conviction was quashed to the date of delivery the Court’s judgment of 09/11/2017 the applicant continued being detained on remand with his detention regularly extended until his conviction on 07/08/2018 (see §§ 8-15 above).   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; as the case progressed failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.   1,300   [1] Rectified on 29 March 2021: the text was “26/07/1978” [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.