CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 octobre 2022

.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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s2B644500 { height:31.3pt } .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 } .s49424500 { height:30.8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 1251/21 Vladislav Andreyevich KRAVTSOV against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   October 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20   November 2020, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Galitrov, a lawyer practising in Elista, Kalmykia Republic. 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 The applicant complained that there had been no sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention. He 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.” 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 considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention is inadmissible. The Court notes that, when deciding on the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in six episodes of drug dealing committed by an organised group. The domestic courts held that the applicant did not have any income. Considering that the charges were serious and that not all members of the organised group had been identified, he could abscond, reoffend, tamper with witnesses and co-defendants and interfere with the investigation. The Court is prepared to accept that the above circumstances could reasonably constitute sufficient grounds justifying the applicant’s pre-trial detention for about nine months (see Zimin v. Russia , no.   48613/06, §§ 26-42, 6 February 2014, and Rozhkov v Russia (dec.), no.   64140/00, 5 February 2007). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint 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 27 October 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 1251/21 20/11/2020 Vladislav Andreyevich KRAVTSOV 1995 Vladimir Viktorovich Galitrov Elista, Kalmykia Republic 12/02/2020 to 17/11/2020 Elista Town Court; Supreme Court of the Kalmykia Republic 9 month(s) and 6 day(s)