CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s403582AA { width:8.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5DB54ECA { width:144.19pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sF14E4627 { height:64.3pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 44360/17 Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr. M. Galperin , the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office. The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicants were arrested on suspicion of various crimes and were placed under house arrest. Some of them were remanded in custody and then the preventive measure was changed to house arrest. On numerous occasions the domestic courts extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention and house arrest. The particular circumstances of the cases are presented in the appended table. COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that their house arrest was unjustified and excessively long. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that their house arrest had been unjustified and excessively long. The Government contested that argument. 8.     The Court notes that the applicable 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). It further refers to its well-established case-law that, similarly to pre-trial detention, house arrest is considered, in view of its degree and intensity, to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Buzadji v.   the   Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 104 5 July 2016). Accordingly, both pre ‑ trial detention and house arrest require relevant and sufficient reasons (ibid . , §   113). 9.     Having carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table in the light of the principles set out in its case-law, the Court concludes that there were relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicants’ house arrest and that the authorities displayed special diligence in handling their cases. The Court observes that while extending the applicants’ house arrest the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in aggravated and/or violent offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the complexity of the criminal cases against the applicants and the existence of a serious risk of their absconding or interfering with justice, confirmed, inter alia , by the pattern of their behaviour, organised nature of the crimes, extensive connection to the criminal underworld and/or substantial financial resources and previous documented attempts to put pressure on witnesses or victims. The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicants were liable to obstruct justice, to re-offend or to abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures but found them to be inadequate. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicants’ continued detention. There is nothing in the material submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the courts dealing with the matter (see, for similar reasoning, Khloyev v.   Russia , no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia , no.   78774/13, §§ 102-10, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia , no. 57319/10, §§   38-48, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia , no. 20756/04, §§   153 ‑ 56, 22   October 2009). 10.     In view of the above, the complaints are manifestly ill-founded, and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 November 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Olga Chernishova   Peeter Roosma   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   List of applications   raising complaints under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive   length of house arrest)   Application no. Date of introduction   Applicant ’ s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative Period and length of house arrest and pre-trial detention, if any Charges against the applicants Court which issued house-arrest and detention order/examined appeal   44360/17   14/06/2017 Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV   1965   Tula   Russian   Represented by Mr   Aleksandr Aleksandrovich CHERNOV, a lawyer practising in Tula House arrest: 06/02/2015-23/01/2018; 2 years and 11 months and 18 days   Pre-trial detention: 23/01/2018-14/05/2018 3 months and 22 days   Organisation of a criminal gang and participation therein using the official position of the President of the Board of Directors of a bank (Article 210 §   3 of the Criminal Code)   Large-scale fraud by a gang (Article 159 §   4 of the Criminal Code)   Large-scale money laundering by a gang (Article 174.1 § 4 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code) Privokzalniy District Court of Tula, Tula Regional Court 56930/17   10/07/2017 Yana Mikhaylovna KUZNETSOVA   1971   Izhevsk   Russian   Represented by Mr   Aleksey Anatolyevich VASILYEV, a lawyer practising in Izhevsk House arrest: 31/07/2015-09/07/2018; 2 years and 11 months and 9 days   Large-scale fraud by an organised criminal group (Article 159 § 4 of the Criminal Code)   Ustinovskiy District Court of Izhevsk, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk, Pervomayskiy District Court of Izhevsk, Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtia 58573/17   03/08/2017 Artemiy Yuryevich SHEVELEV   1984   Kemerovo   Russian   Represented by Mr   Roman Aleksandrovich MAKARENKO, a lawyer practising in Kemerovo Police custody: 14/11/2016-18/11/2016; 4 days   House arrest: 18/11/2016 – pending; at least 4 years and 7   months and 4 days   Large-scale extortion (Article 163 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code) Tsentralniy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court; Tsentralniy District Court of Kemerovo 80185/17   11/11/2017 Andrey Petrovich IVASHKIN   1978   Krasnoyarsk   Russian   Represented by Mr   Igor Borisovich SIROTKIN, a lawyer practising in Krasnoyarsk House arrest: 23/02/2017 – 03/11/2017; 8 months and 12 days   Large-scale bribery (Article 291 § 4 (b) of the Criminal Code) Zheleznogorsk Town Court, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 81443/17   26/11/2017 Konstantin Arkadyevich TOMENCHUK   1973   Tula   Russian   Represented by Ms   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA, a lawyer practising in Kazan House arrest: 06/02/2015-23/01/2018; 2 years and 11 months and 18 days   Pre-trial detention: 23/01/2018-14/05/2018 3 months and 22 days   Organisation of a gang and participation therein using the official position of the President of the Supervisory Board of a bank (Article 210 § 3 of the Criminal Code)   Large-scale fraud by a gang (Article 159 § 4 of the Criminal Code)   Large-scale money laundering by a gang (Article 174.1 § 4 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code)   Unlawful actions during the insolvency proceedings (Article 195 § 2 of the Criminal Code) Privokzalniy District Court of Tula, Tula Regional Court