CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 juin 2021

.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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4030DF6D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s8A9EE819 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s867F9C1B { width:175.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 29715/11 and 27 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 25 September 2025 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 16 October 2025   STRASBOURG 10 June 2021       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Namchyl-Ool and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2021, 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 Application no.   27618/18 6.     The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no.   27618/18 whereby they acknowledged that the applicant’s complaints against the detention orders of 31   December 2017, 14   February and 16   March 2018 had not been examined “speedily” as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 500 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 7.     The applicant rejected the Government’s proposal. 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”. 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, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§   75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). 9.     The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the “speediness” requirement of Article   5   §   4 of the Convention in respect of the review of lawfulness of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   154-58, 22 May 2012). 10.   Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration 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 the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 11.     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 the application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine). 12.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). 13.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out application no.   27618/18 in the part concerning the review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Application no.   3127/19 14.     The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no.   3127/19 which was not accepted by the applicant. The Court notes that the unilateral declaration 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 , cited above, § 75).   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. 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. 19.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 20.     Some applicants also raised complaints under other Convention provisions (see the appended table below). 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 well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning confinement of a defendant in a metal cage during the trial and absence of effective remedies to complain thereof; Menesheva v.   Russia , no.   59261/00, § §   85-89, ECHR 2006 ‑ III, concerning unrecorded detention; Idalov v. Russia , Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007, as regards absence of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 21.     In some applications the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 22.     In particular, in application no. 27618/18 the applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about excessively lengthy detention in violation of domestic law. Having regard to the facts of the case, 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 application with regard to Article 5 of the Convention. It thus considers that the applicant’s complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint 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). 23.     In application no.   7658/19 the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Having examined it, the Court 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 application no. 7658/19 must be dismissed in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 24.     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.” 25.     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. 26.     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; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention (application no.   27618/18) and decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases an accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention; Rejects the respondent Government’s request to strike application no.   3127/19 out of its list of cases; 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 complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 27618/18, admissible and the remainder of application no.   7658/19 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 the appended table); Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 5   §   1 of the Convention in application no. 27618/18; 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 10 June 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli 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 Year 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]     29715/11 19/04/2011 Andrey Kara-Oolovich NAMCHYL-OOL 1967 Konin Vladimir Vladimirovich Kaliningrad 25/11/2009 to 19/07/2012 Kyzyl Town Court of the Tyva Republic, Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; the national courts extended the period of the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons throughout the whole period of his pre-trial detention Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was placed in a metal cage during the hearing on 25 November 2010 before the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic 9,750     35425/12 18/05/2012 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich MELNIKOV 1970     12/03/2012 to 06/03/2013 Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg; Sverdlovsk Regional Court 11 month(s) and 23 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint     1,000     41501/17 02/06/2017 Vladimir Viktorovich ZUBAREV 1977 Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich Voronezh 28/10/2016 to 06/09/2017 Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court 10 month(s) and 10 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint     1,000     48049/17 09/06/2017 Aleksandr Alekseyevich GAYDA 1988 Pakin Konstantin Vladimirovich Velikiy Novgorod 03/08/2016 to 09/08/2017 Soletskiy District Court of Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court 1 year(s) and 7 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint     1,100     54024/17 13/07/2017 Dmitriy Nikolayevich GAGARIN 1981 Tsareva Yevgeniya Sergeyevna Vladivostok 06/06/2013 to 05/02/2018 Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Ussuriyskiy District Courts of the Primorye Region Primorye Regional Court 4 year(s) and 8 month(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders   4,800     78906/17 10/11/2017 Nikolay Nikolayevich YEFIMENKO 1989 Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich Astrakhan 07/07/2017 to 21/12/2017 Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court 5 month(s) and 15 day(s)   reliance exclusively on the seriousness of the charges; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - complaint about unrecorded detention between 07/07/2017 and 08/07/2017 ( Menesheva v.   Russia , no. 59261/00, §§   85-89, ECHR 2006 III) 1,300     79765/17 24/10/2017 Marina Nikolayevna BOCHAROVA 1975     22/07/2010 to 29/05/2017 Vologda Regional Court 6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention -the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial 6,500     83235/17 03/12/2017 Ruslan Yedresovich ORAZALIN 1988 Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk 28/10/2016 to 25/12/2019 Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s) failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant was placed in a metal cage during hearings in Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk (trial court) from 28/11/2016 to 07/06/2017   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against decision of 11/09/2017 extending the period of pre-trial detention was examined on 26/10/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect to the placement in metal cage during the trial 9,750     298/18 11/12/2017 Igor Borisovich NAGAVKIN 1980 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow 28/09/2016 to 16/11/2018 Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court, Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s) 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision of 19/06/2017 extending the period of the applicant’s detention was examined on 12/07/2017   2,700   2505/18 19/12/2017 Edvard Borisovich ZOLOTUKHIN 1962 Timireva Olga Vladimirovna Moscow 29/08/2017 to 14/06/2018 Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 9 month(s) and 17 day(s)   fragility of reasons employed by the domestic courts; the applicant was accused of a “white-collar” crime; 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 - appeal against the detention order of 30/08/2017 examined on appeal on 9/10/2017 1,300   3143/18 27/12/2017 Sergey Sergeyevich PAKHOMOV 1985 Kharlamova Anna Vyacheslavovna Lipetsk 18/06/2015 to 06/03/2018 Levoberezhnyy District Court of Lipetsk, Lipetsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)   a number of ccollective detention orders, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   2,900   09/01/2018 Anastasiya Igorevna TEPLYGINA /1990 Smishchenko Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow 26/04/2016 to 11/09/2017 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 17 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; the applicant was accused of an economic (“white collar”) crime     1,500   4802/18 19/12/2017 Aleksey Arkadyevich MALOBRODSKIY 1958 Karpinskaya Kseniya Sergeyevna Moscow 19/06/2017 to 25/04/2018 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)   collective detention orders (in part); fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal against the decision extending the period of the applicant’s detention of 18/07/2017 was examined on 06/09/2017 1,300   7222/18 10/01/2018 Aleksandr Yuryevich BATRIN 1977 Korshunov Andrey Anatolyevich Volgograd 23/09/2014 to 20/08/2018   Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 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   4,000   7349/18 19/01/2018 Aleksandr Vsevolodovich KIRBAY 1972 Pakin Konstantin Vladimirovich Velikiy Novgorod 08/08/2017 to 07/08/2018 Novgorodskiy District Court of Novgorod, Novgorod Regional Court 1 year(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts   1,000   8349/18 16/01/2018 Petr Anatolyevich YAKOVLEV 1987 Shishkina Olga Yevgenyevna Arkhangelsk 06/06/2016 to 09/02/2018   Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   1,900   8828/18 06/02/2018 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich MAKAROV 1978 Plekhanov Aleksandr Valeryevich Volgograd 23/09/2014 to 20/08/2018   Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s) failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders   4,000   27618/18 04/06/2018 Bekzod Ulugbek ugli MADZHITOV 1992 Aliyev Eldar Ibragim ogly St Petersburg 18/02/2016 to 05/07/2019 St Petersburg City Court 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 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 case progressed   500 under the Government’s unilateral declaration and 3,500 in respect of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention   46294/18 29/08/2018 Ion Nikolayevich PEREVOSHCHIKOV 1978     20/08/2014 to 19/09/2019   Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region; Noginsk Town Court; Moscow Regional Court 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   5,000   48417/18 05/10/2018 Oleg Aleksandrovich FEOKTISTOV 1983     05/04/2017 pending Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 22 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; collective detention orders   4,000   50961/18 07/10/2018 Vladimir Yuryevich BORISOV 1959 Redkin Dmitriy Andreyevich Krasnoyarsk 09/04/2018 pending Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 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   3,000   53000/18 01/11/2018 Aleksey Vyacheslavovich [1] SUSHKOV 1977 Znamenshchikov Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Lipetsk 31/08/2018 pending Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s) failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; 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   2,700   3127/19 20/12/2018 Pavel Vladimirovich LITVINTSEV 1988     08/07/2018 to 13/04/2019 Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk; Irkutsk Regional Court   9 month(s) and 6 day(s)   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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during numerous hearings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk 9,750   6565/19 08/10/2018 Sergey Vladimirovich BRYLEV 1984     26/07/2016 pending Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic More than 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed   4,900   7658/19 21/01/2018 Vladislav Yuryevich PETRUSHENKO 1970 Baryshnikov Ivan Aleksandrovich Moscow 29/08/2018 to 28/01/2019 Khimki Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court 5 month(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   500   8268/19 06/02/2019 Petr Ilyich ASTAFYEV 1999 Kostyushev Vladimir Yuryevich Moscow 13/07/2018 to 05/11/2019 Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30 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   2,000   8766/19 27/01/2019 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PRIMAKOV 1978     08/06/2015 to 21/11/2018 Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 14 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; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – the appeal against the decision extending the period of the applicant’s detention of 23/07/2018 was examined on appeal on 11/09/2018. 4,100   9489/19 01/02/2019 Sergey Stepanovich DERZHIPILSKIY 1996     15/03/2017 to 06/02/2020 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s) 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; 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   3,000   [1]     Rectified on 25 September 2025: the text was “Valeryevich”. [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.