CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s89DB49F5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RADOSHEVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 53209/17 and 22 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 February 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Radoshevich and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 February 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 excessive length of their pre-trial 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   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 8.     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, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, 22 May 2012; 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). 9.     In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to the placement of applicants in a metal cage in courtrooms; Idalov , cited above, §§ 154-58, concerning the lack of speedy review of detention matters; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of transport of detainees, and Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007, as regards absence of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), 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 the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   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 Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     53209/17 11/07/2017 Aleksandr Ilyich RADOSHEVICH 1977     11/07/2016 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court and Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 6 day(s)   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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement of the applicant in a metal cage in the courtroom of the Leninskiy and Voroshilovskiy District Court, since 13/07/2016 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022 9,750     58512/18 28/11/2018 Igor Nikolayevich BELOUSOV 1963 Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 22/08/2017 to 22/05/2019 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 1 day(s)   failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention orders delivered on 04/05/2018, 16/08/2018, 19/11/2018 and 21/02/2019 were examined on appeal on 04/06/2018, 20/09/2018, 13/12/2018 and 16/04/2019, respectively 2,600     13179/21 11/02/2021 Mikhail Borisovich MIKHALEV 1982     21/01/2020 to 24/06/2021 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, 8th Cassation Court 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s)   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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders   1,600     17191/21 10/03/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GOLTSEV 1981     21/02/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Nevinnomysskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27   day(s)   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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders       4,700     19460/21 28/06/2021 Ivan Viktorovich VAYSBROT 1996     30/12/2019 to 28/12/2020 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 11 month(s) and 29   day(s)   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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - 1,300     20633/21 31/03/2021 Garnik Robertovich SARKISYAN 1983     09/07/2015 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 7 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 day(s collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   5,000     22029/21 31/03/2021 Natalya Vasilyevna DONCHENKO 1979 Donchenko Dmitriy Anatolyevich Krasnooktyabrskaya 21/01/2019 to 26/12/2019   20/05/2020 to 14/10/2021 Belorechenskiy District Court of Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court 11 month(s) and 6 day(s)   1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint     2,500     22043/21 05/04/2021 Khadzhi-Murat Yuryevich MERDENOV 1965 Savin Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Stavropol 13/08/2020 to 14/05/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz, Supreme Court of Severnaya Osetiya-Alaniya Republic 9 month(s) and 2 day(s)   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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   1,000     25553/21 06/05/2021 Nataliya Igorevna KOZHANOVA 1955     03/06/2020 to 28/07/2021 Nizhegorodsky District Court of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 26   day(s)   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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   1,200   25614/21 23/04/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich LEVCHENKO 1982 Agranovskiy Dmitriy Vladimirovich Moscow 28/09/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20   day(s)   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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement of the applicant in a metal cage in the court room of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, 29/09/2020-18/02/2021 9,750   30157/21 17/05/2021 Rinat Aleksandrovich FOREKS 1986 Kosolapov Andrey Yuryevich [email protected] 10/06/2018 to 23/03/2020     13/11/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Pravoberezhniy District Court of Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 14   day(s)   1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 4 day(s)   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. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - Pravoberezhnyy District Court of Magnitogorsk, 08/12/2020, appeal decision by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 14/01/2021;   Pravoberezhnyy District Court of Magnitogorsk, 10/02/2021, appeal decision by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, on 03/03/2021 4,900   32318/21 05/06/2021 Marat Faritovich GANIYEV 1987     12/07/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 5 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - 1) detention order on 20/12/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, appeal decision on 05/02/2021, Fourth Appellate Court;   2) detention order on 04/02/2021, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, appeal decision on 02/03/2021, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic;   3) detention order on 01/04/2021, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, appeal decision on 23/04/2021, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic;   4) detention order on 05/05/2021, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, appeal decision on 25/05/2021, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic;   5) detention order on 01/07/2021, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, appeal decision on 30/07/2021, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic;   6) detention order on 05/08/2021, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, appeal decision on 20/08/2021, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic   4,300   32586/21 22/06/2021 Nikolay Yevgenyevich YUKHNOV 1981 Vodyanik Yekaterina Aleksandrovna Rostov-on-Don 10/12/2020 to 09/06/2021 Azovskiy Town Court, Rostov Regional Court 6 month(s)   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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Between 10/12/2020 and 09/06/2021, transport on several occasions by van, 0.65 m x 0.5 m and height 1.55 - 1.7   m; no windows; the applicant’s weight is 110 kg and height 1.96 m 1,300   33069/21 31/05/2021 Zabaydullo Abdulakhadovich ZOKIROV 1981     24/04/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)   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   2,500   35106/21 14/04/2021 Vsevolod Valeryevich KONDRATYEV 1974 Tyshchenko Nikolay Nikolayevich Barnaul 24/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 24 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   2,200   42144/21 04/08/2021 Oleg Leonidovich VLASOV 1972 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow 06/05/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s)   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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   2,500   50229/21 22/09/2021 Roman Eduardovich ARKHIPOV 1992 Belyayev Mikhail Aleksandrovich Moscow 25/02/2021 to 12/11/2021 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 8 month(s) and 19 day(s)   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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint           1,000   51508/21 05/08/2021 Dmitriy Sergeyevich SENKIN 1979     07/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, the St Petersburg City Court 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Detention in a cage during detention proceedings since 09/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court 9,750   56837/21 22/10/2021 Dmitriy Vladimirovich GLAZACHEV 1973 Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich Moscow 12/04/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, Basmannyy Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s)   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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   4,600   57991/21 29/11/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich TSUNIN 1957     17/08/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Avtozavodsk District Court of Tolyatti, Samara Regional Court 1 year(s) and 1 month(s)   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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Samara Regional Court; 02/11/2021   9,750   61186/21 23/11/2021 Mikhail Anatolyevich KORCHUGANOV 1986     13/03/2021 to 18/01/2022 Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan of the Republic of Tatrastan, Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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   1,000   61737/21 29/11/2021 Natalya Semenovna ASANOVICH 1979 Lykov Aleksey Vladimirovich Moscow 17/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022     Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention orders of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow of 16/04/2021 and 15/07/2021, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 31/05/2021 and 25/08/2021, respectively. 2,200   3997/22 17/12/2021 Aleksandr Anatolyevich VARFOLOMEYEV 1986     04/06/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Kirov, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, Fourth Appeal Court 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial   4,400     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.