CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 1 février 2024

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .s50736DE9 { height:88pt } .sF964E089 { height:79.15pt } .s3D31756B { height:58.95pt } .s19980776 { height:59.9pt } .sB5E1263B { height:23.9pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 36904/19 and 37 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 1 February 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Butyanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2024, 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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of 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. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 8.     The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland , no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia , no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia , twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4). 9.     In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     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 appeal proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). 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 findings in   Alekhin v. Russia , no. 10638/08, §§ 146-55, 30 July 2009, regarding lack of, or inadequate, compensation in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and review of detention; Ananyev and Others v. Russi a , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, as regards conditions of detention and lack of effective remedy; Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, 27   November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre‑trial detention; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and   60980/14, § 126, 4   October 2016, concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage or in a glass cabin in courtrooms; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no.   43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018, and Resin v. Russia , no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in prison; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76 ‑ 79, 26 June 2018, as regards unlawful detention; Mariya Alekhina and Others v.   Russia , no. 38004/12, §§ 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Tomov and   Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this connection; Chaldayev v. Russia , no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28   May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits; Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, as to the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia , nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 101-12, 4   July 2013, concerning ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     Having regard to the above findings in paragraphs 11 and 12, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention as regards detention in a cage or a glass cabin (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). 14.     The applicant in application no. 30057/22 also raised additional complaints. Having examined these complaints, 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 the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11   July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the complaints about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of detention in a cage or a glass cabin during a court hearing, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 30057/22 as inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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 1 February 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     36904/19 04/07/2019 Aleksandr Nikolayevich BUTYANOV 1980     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/01/2021   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/05/2021   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 27/07/2021   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/10/2021 Fifth Appellate Court, 26/02/2021   Fifth Appellate Court, 24/06/2021   Fifth Appellate Court, 08/09/2021   Fifth Appellate Court, 26/11/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012) Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Placement of the applicant in a metal cage during the hearing in the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 19/05/2021,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Nizhneingashskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court, since 23/10/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022, detention on charges of murder and weapon trafficking, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; 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; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 9,750     41841/19 02/03/2020   and   59342/21 18/11/2021 Valeriy Igorevich NIKOLAYEV 1990   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2020   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/06/2020     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 23/12/2020   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2021 Fifth Appellate Court, 28/08/2020   Fifth Appellate Court, 30/09/2020     Fifth Appellate Court, 15/03/2021   Fifth Appellate Court, 20/05/2021   lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§   154-5tqrq8, 22 May 2012) Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, since 18/02/2019 - pending as of 16/09/2022,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 §   4 of the Convention;   Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusal of long-term family visits ( Resin v. Russia , no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18   December 2018, and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia , no. 63748/13, §§ 43 54, 9 June 2020), physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits ( Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no.   43149/10, §§   51‑56, 13 February 2018),   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 9,750     20809/21 17/03/2021 Dmitriy Vladimirovich GUKOV 1985     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 29/02/2020   Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 05/02/2020 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 26/01/2021     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/02/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; 29/12/2020-10/03/2021   8,000     23768/21 05/08/2021 Anton Indusovich GABITOV 1988     Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 02/03/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 08/04/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500     24513/21 27/12/2021 Vitaliy Sergeyevich MATERKIN 1991     Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 22/09/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28/10/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012)   500     33095/21 09/06/2021 Maksim Anatolyevich DOLGODVOROV 1982     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 12/03/2021 Second Appellate Court, 19/04/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012) Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - between 19/08/2016 and 01/10/2021, transported on numerous occasions (more than 600 times), each of the trips took 45 minutes and more, overcrowding (there were at least 14 detainees in a van each time), some people smoke during transportation, the applicant was transported handcuffed, there were no safety belts or handles,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - The applicant is in pre-trial detention in SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region, since 19/08/2016 - pending as of 16/09/2022; overcrowding (< 2 sq. m. per person), passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of heating, absence of warm water, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - In pre-trial detention since 18/08/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022; Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, specific defects: 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,   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - in SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region, since 19/08/2016 and ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court: opposite sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance,   Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusal of long-term family visits;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 16,300     36485/21 23/06/2021 Shamil Eduardovich NIGMATZYANOV 1991     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/04/2021 Fourth Appellate Court 03/06/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)       500     40042/21 13/07/2021 Timur Narimanovich NUTSALOV 1994     Cheremushkinsky District Court of Moscow 14/04/2021 Moscow City Court, 27/05/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012)   500     44915/21 03/10/2021 Aleksandr Viktorovich GERASIMOV 1984     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021   Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021   Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 Second Appellate Court, 12/08/2021   Second Appellate Court, 21/10/2021   Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   48431/21 27/08/2021 Natig Agalar Ogly ISKANDAROV 1977     Vakhitovskiy District Court, 04/05/2021 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 28/05/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)           500   48973/21 15/09/2021 Georgiy Nikolayevich ZHAVORONKOV 1956 Sivchenko Vadim Tikhonovich Korolev Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, 04/02/2021   Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, 31/03/2021 Moscow City Court, 23/03/2021     Moscow City Court, 10/06/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   49774/21 24/09/2021 Vadim Leonidovich LITVINOV 1968 Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna Moscow Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 13/05/2021 Moscow City Court, 07/07/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   50115/21 29/09/2021 Yuriy Edisherovich SHONIYA 1982     Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 30/04/2021 St Petersburg City Court, 07/06/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   51000/21 29/09/2021 Anatoliy Yuryevich GOLOVKO 1987     Lomonosov District Court of Arkhangelsk, 13/07/2021 Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 04/08/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Velskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, since 16/11/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, accused of kidnapping, 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice 1,500   53763/21 22/10/2021 Sergey Alekseyevich VNUKOV 1974 Brigadin Vladimir Anatolyevich Moscow Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 31/03/2021   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 01/07/2021 Moscow City Court, 24/05/2021   Moscow City Court, 16/08/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, since 04/02/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, accused of fraud, 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed 2,300   59939/21 11/11/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZLUTSEV 1994     Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, 01/04/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/05/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; 07/03/2019-04/06/2021,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - between 05/03/2019 and 12/05/2020 (the first conviction, reversed on appeal on 10/09/2020 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court) and between 10/09/2020 and 04/06/2021; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - in respect of the violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention,   Art. 6 (1) in conjunction with Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair trial in view of the inability to have confidential exchanges with his legal counsel during the trial due to his placement in a metal cage, in particular, due to the permanent presence of escort officers near the metal cage and their inspection and reading of all the written communications passed by the applicant, confined in the metal cage, to his legal counsel (raised on appeal) 9,750   61034/21 26/11/2021 Aleksey Nikolayevich DUDOCHKIN 1991 Pavlova Natalya Valeryevna Zelenogorsk Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 21/04/2021   Sovetskiy District Court, 13/05/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28/05/2021     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention - lack of compensation remedy for excessive length of review of detention 500   917/22 22/12/2021 Anatoliy Petrovich BYKOV 1960 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 15/06/2021,   Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 16/06/2021   Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 18/08/2021,   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 06/10/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/07/2021     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 29/07/2021     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21/09/2021     Fifth Appellate Court, 12/11/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;   Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - elections to the State Duma, 17-19/09/2021 500   1085/22 18/12/2021 Yuriy Pavlovich ARTOKHIN 1986 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, 17/05/2021 Moscow City Court, 22/06/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   1547/22 22/12/2021 Kirill Sergeyevich KONSTANTINOV 1988 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow Dorogomilevskiy District Court of Moscow 22/05/2021 Moscow City Court 22/06/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested at 12.30 on 19/05/2021, recorded at 9 p.m. on 20/05/2021; raised in detention proceedings, decision of 22/06/2021 (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018) 3,500   2112/22 23/11/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich SOBORNOV 1979     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 04/05/2021   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/08/2021   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 01/09/2021   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 30/09/2021 Fourth Appellate Court, 23/06/2021     Fourth Appellate Court, 25/08/2021     Fourth Appellate Court, 15/09/2021     Fourth Appellate Court, 22/10/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court, detention period to be examined is after 21/07/2022 (the detention period before 21/07/2022 was already found by the Court to violate Art. 5-3 of the Convention), extortion, economic crime, 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding 1,000   3558/22 01/12/2021 Rustem Vyacheslavovich FETISOV 1989     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 14/05/2021 Fourth Appellate Court, 11/06/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court, since 24/03/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022, drug offence, 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding. 3,400   4511/22 21/12/2021 Maksim Pavlovich YEMELYANOV 1981     Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, 07/06/2021 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 23/07/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   5361/22 29/12/2021 Dmitriy Sergeyevich LAMANOV 1992 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Nadym Town Court, 18/09/2021       Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, 09/11/2021 Yamalo-Neninskiy Regional Court, 14/10/2021   Moscow City Court, 14/12/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Nadym Town Court of the Yamalo-Nenetsk Region, Yamalo-Nenetsk Regional Court, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, pre-trial detention since 16/09/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, calls to unauthorized manifestation, 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 1,400   6211/22 27/12/2021 Vadim Vladimirovich SHVETS 1974     13/05/2021 Nevskiy District Court of   St Petersburg 21/10/2021 St Petersburg City Court lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012)   500   7052/22 03/01/2022 Roman Aleksandrovich KARETNIKOV 1986     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021   Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021   Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021 Second Appellate Court, 14/10/2021   Second Appellate Court, 09/02/2022   Second Appellate Court, 28/07/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012) Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant’s placement in a glass cabin during the hearings in the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 16/09/2021; six persons per cabin measuring 3.6 sq. m.,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, since 25/01/2017 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged, 0.32 sq. m of personal space, the applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, inadequate temperature,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the applicant’s conditions of transport 9,750   8843/22 27/01/2022 Ilkin Elshanovich SALIMOV 1994     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 24/06/2021 Fifth Appellate Court, 28/07/2021   lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 500   9341/22 22/01/2022 Farrukh Dilmurodovich TULAYEV 1989 Pliskin Pavel Markovich St Petersburg Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 30/06/2021 St Petersburg City Court, 22/07/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   9500/22 18/01/2022 Yevgeniy Olegovich PALAMARCHUK 1996     Zelenodolsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 07/07/2021 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 17/09/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   11164/22 07/02/2022 Artur Aleksandrovich KUPREISHVILI 1989     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021   Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 Second Appellate Court, 14/10/2021   Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   11172/22 03/02/2022 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich BOGDANOV 1980     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 Second Appellate Court, 21/10/2021     Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court; since 09/11/2014, pending as of 16/09/2022; extorsion, murder, several crimes, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, collective detention orders 6,500   11781/22 14/02/2022 Mikhail Yuryevich DUDOCHKIN 1984 Timchenko Denis Aleksandrovich Moscow Zheleznogorskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 12/10/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 16/12/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   14873/22 21/02/2022 Andrey Nikolayevich KOLPAKOV 1976 Gurenko Vitaliy Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 24/11/2021   Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 19/12/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21/12/2021     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 20/01/2022 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - use of metal cage in Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, since 24/11/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022 8,000   19613/22 08/03/2022 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DANILOV 1985     Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)   500   25042/22 28/04/2022 Timur Magomedrasulovich MAGOMEDOV 1984 Pliskin Pavel Markovich St Petersburg Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of   St Peterburg, 01/10/2021   Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 13/10/2021 St Petersburg City Court, 28/10/2021     St Petersburg City Court, 03/12/2021 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012)   500   27726/22 27/05/2022 Aleksey Olegovich ZADUMIN 1972 Kukharev Aleksandr Vladimirovich Moscow Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow 04/02/2022 Moscow City Court on 09/03/2022 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,   §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearing in the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 27/04/2022,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, since 02/02/2022, pending as of 16/09/2022, economic crime; 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice 9,750   30057/22 06/06/2022 Viktor Vyacheslavovich KRYSOV 2000     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 02/02/2022 Fifth Appellate Court, 11/03/2022 lack of speediness of review of detention ( Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58,   22 May 2012) Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.