CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 avril 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 16070/12 Vera Vladimirovna CHERTENKOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   April   2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Peeter Roosma,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9   March 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. She was represented by Mr A. Minligaleyev, a lawyer practising in Tomsk. The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. On 20 August 2020 the applicant died. By letter of 28   January 2021 the applicant’s mother Ms L. Chertenkova expressed her interest to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the applicant’s stead. The Government considered that Ms L. Chertenkova did not have standing to pursue the application owing to the personal and non-transferrable nature of the rights complained of by the applicant. They discerned no question of general interest that would justify the continued examination of the application and invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. THE LAW The Court does not consider it necessary to address the question as to the locus standi of the applicant’s mother in the proceedings before it because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. As to the complaint under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention, 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). In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicant was liable to obstruct justice or to re-offend. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures to the applicant but found them to be inadequate. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicant’s remand in custody. The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, 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 this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. The applicant also raised a 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, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 May 2022.     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 Other complaints 16070/12 09/03/2012 Vera Vladimirovna CHERTENKOVA 1980 Minligaleyev Aleksey Fedorovich Tomsk 29/08/2011 to 01/11/2011 Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk, Tomsk Regional Court 2 month(s) and 4 day(s)   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - applicant’s absence from the appeal hearing before the Tomsk Regional Court on 12/09/2011.