CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 12345/18 Makich Viktorovich ARUTYUNYAN against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 March 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention (see appended table). By letters, dated as indicated in the appended table, sent by registered post, the applicants were requested to provide information concerning further developments in their respective cases. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no replies from the applicants were received to the Registry’s letters. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 July 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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 Other complaints under well-established case-law Date of the Court’s letter sent by registered post Date of receipt of the Court’s letter by the applicants     12345/18 16/02/2018 Makich Viktorovich ARUTYUNYAN 1957         04/06/2021 According to the postal tracking information after an attempted delivery on 17/06/2021 the letter was returned to the Court as undelivered.     21048/19 03/04/2019 Aleksandr Yakovlevich KABANOV 1967   Kozaredova Vera Germanovna Volgograd   04/06/2021 According to the postal tracking information after an attempted delivery on 17/06/2021 the letter was returned to the Court as undelivered.     32463/19 05/06/2019 Sergey Vladimirovich FIRSOV 1985         16/06/2021 According to the postal tracking information after an attempted delivery on 01/07/2021 the letter was returned to the Court as undelivered.     11724/20 05/02/2020 Ayvaz Magomedovich ABDURAKHMANOV 1964       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of the applicant’s placement into a metal cage   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement of the applicant during many hearings before various courts dealing with the issues of pre-trial detention and before the trial court in a metal cage 16/06/2021 The registered mail form returned to the Court on 31/08/2021 signed by the applicant’s contact person on 09/07/2021.     17361/20 13/10/2020 Aleksandr Nikolayevich POSTRIGAN 1949   Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal proceedings lasting more than 22   days after lodging an appeal against a detention order Decision of extension issued by Moscow City Court on 23/12/2019, the appeal judgment issued by the Moscow City Court on 20/02/2020. Decision of extension issued by the Klin Town Court on 18/03/2020, the appeal judgment issued by the Moscow Regional Court on 02/07/2020. 16/06/2021 The registered mail form returned to the Court on 02/08/2021 signed by the applicant’s representative on 15/06/2021.     19134/20 04/04/2020 Aleksandr Nikolayevich BAGANETS 1985   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk   16/06/2021 The registered letter which was sent to applicant’s representative returned to the Court as unclaimed on 01/07/2021.