CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 24504/18 Yuriy Vladimirovich ZUYEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3   June   2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16   May 2018, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms A. Belous , a lawyer practising in Irkutsk. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant’s grievances concern two periods of the applicant’s detention, i.e., from 29   February 2016 , when the applicant was arrested, to 31   January 2018, when his detention was replaced with a house arrest, in respect of which, he did not complain, and from 13   February 2018, when the appellate court quashed the decision of 31   January 2018 authorising the applicant’s house arrest and remanded the applicant in custody pending trial, to 30   July 2018, when the court at first level of jurisdiction replaced the applicant’s detention with a house of arrest. As regards the first period, the Court observes that the complaint was lodged on 16   May 2018, which is more than six months after the examination of the most recent appeal on 2   December 2016. The applicant did not appeal against any subsequent detention orders. It follows that the complaint in respect of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 29 February 2016 to 31   January 2018 should be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the second period, the Court notes its relatively short duration, without losing sight of the fact that the applicant spent almost two years in custody in the course of the same criminal proceedings against him (see, mutatis mutandis , Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   127-33, 22   May 2012). It further observes that while extending the applicant’s detention the domestic courts had relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in serious criminal offences (multiple counts of illegal trade in hazardous substances and fraud), the complexity of the criminal case against him and the existence of a serious risk of his absconding or interfering with administration of justice. The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicant was liable to obstruct justice by putting pressure on witnesses, to re-offend or abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures but found them to be inadequate at the time. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ continued detention. The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (compare Khloyev v.   Russia , no. 46404/13, §§ 96‑107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia , no.   78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia , no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia , no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention related to the period of his detention after 13   February 2018 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 June 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention 24504/18 16/05/2018 Yuriy Vladimirovich ZUYEV 1963   Belous Alfiya Aukhadinovna Irkutsk From 29/02/2016 to 31/01/2018   From 13/02/2018 to 30/07/2018 Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, Leninskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court, Irkutsk Regional Court. 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s)   5 month(s) and 18 day(s)