CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.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 } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF LOBKOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 41907/20 and 60 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 April 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lobkovskiy 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 14 March 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Korshunov v. Russia , no. 38971/06, 25   October 2007, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§   123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v. Russia , no.   33172/16, §§   69 ‑ 83, 28 May 2019, related to discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2   others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms and additional complaints lodged by some applicants under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these complaints 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 that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms and additional complaints raised by some of the applicants under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 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 4 April 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]     41907/20 11/01/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich LOBKOVSKIY 1981     16/04/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 1   day(s)   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   2,600     49670/20 16/02/2021 Dmitriy Mukhammadzhonovich KHAYDAROV 1976     19/06/2020   - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk; Novosibirsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 2   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   2,300     1697/21 10/12/2020 Maksim Valeryevich CHUGUNOV 1982 Muravyev Oleg Sergeyevich Moscow 25/09/2019 - 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, First Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 23   day(s)   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 Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 3,000     3603/21 07/12/2020 Ziyafat Guseyn ogly PIRIYEV 1970     18/07/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kalininskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, Moscovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court 5 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 30   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in an overcrowded glass cabin in St Petersburg City Court (16/07/2018 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022) with other co-defendants; with a very limited private space; lack of fresh air 9,750     4103/21 30/12/2020 Vladislav Andreyevich KISELEV 1995 Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna Moscow 03/07/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 3 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 14   day(s)   collective detention orders; 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   3,300     4334/21 30/12/2020 Igor Vasilyevich AROKIN 1972 Kim Vyacheslav Spartakovich Abakan 29/12/2016 to 28/09/2020 Abakan Town Court, Supreme Court of Republic of Khakasiya 3 year(s) and 9   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; collective detention orders; 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Confinement in a metal cage during first-instance hearings. Numerous placements in a metal cage, the most recent being on 28/09/2020 9,750     4532/21 29/12/2020 Anton Sergeyevich BATAYEV 1983 Savin Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Stavropol 18/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy Distrcit Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court 2 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 30   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; 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   2,300     4538/21 21/12/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich PROKHOROV 1987 Molokhov Aleksandr Vladimorovich Moscow 22/07/2020 - 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 2 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 26   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   2,200     7307/21 29/12/2020 Sayd-Emin Khabilovich IBISHEV 1977 Ustyuzhaninov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich St Petersburg 18/07/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sestroretskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, Kalininskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, Moskovkiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court 5 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 30   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; 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 - Complaint about placement of the applicant in a glass cabin on numerous occasions during the proceedings in St Petersburg City Court concerning his detention orders (the period from 13/07/2018 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022). The applicant alleges that one of his co-accused sick with COVID-19 was kept in the same glass cabin with the applicant and other co-accused 9,750   7385/21 05/05/2021 Mikhail Yuryevich BASHAGUROV 1971     09/11/2016 to 17/12/2018   23/05/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk, Tomsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 9   day(s)   3 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 25   day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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   5,000   7746/21 29/01/2021 Vladimir Fedorovich KUPAVSKIY 1966     10/12/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Perm Garrison Military Court; Central Circuit Military Court 1 year(s) and 9   month(s) and 7   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   2,000   7898/21 29/12/2020 Nver Arutyunovich OGANISYAN 1964 Ustyuzhaninov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich St Petersburg 05/04/2018 to 27/08/2020 Moskovskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 23   day(s)   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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Complaint about placement of the applicant in a glass cabin on numerous occasions during the proceedings in St Petersburg City Court concerning his detention orders (the period from 03/04/2019 till 27/08/2020). The applicant alleges that one of his co-accused sick with COVID-19 was kept in the same glass cabin with the applicant and other co-accused. 9,750   7968/21 29/12/2020 Murat Vakhayevich EZHAYEV 1986 Ustyuzhaninov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich St Petersburg 05/04/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Moskovskiy Disrtict Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court 4 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 12   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; 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 in a glass cabin on numerous occasions during the proceedings in St Petersburg City Court (the period from 03/04/2019 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022). The applicant alleges that one of the co-accused sick with COVID-19 was kept in the same glass cabin with the applicant and other co-accused 9,750   9289/21 25/01/2021 Aglyam Kiyamovich SADRETDINOV 1951 Khaliullin Robert Nurgaleyevich Kazan 16/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 1   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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the proceedings related to the preventive measure before the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan from 17/07/2020 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022 9,750   10255/21 31/01/2021 Zhanna Nikolayevna IDILOVA 1979 Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna Moscow 30/08/2018 to 02/08/2021 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Odintsovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 4   day(s)   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; 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   3,000   11527/21 03/02/2021 Andrey Aleksandovich GANYUSHIN 1979     04/05/2017 to 15/10/2020   09/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Volgograd Regional Court, Moscow City Court, First Appeal Court 3 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 12   day(s) 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 8   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   5,000   11711/21 18/02/2021 Nikita Valeryevich LUKYANOV 1985 Pchelintseva Marina Vladimirovna Moscow 27/03/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 21   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 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   3,600   12193/21 10/02/2021 Andrey Mikhaylovich DAVYDENKO 1982     18/05/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Perovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 5 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 30   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; collective detention orders   5,000   12530/21 26/02/2021 Vitaliy Vasilyevich PONOMAREV 1959 Zimin Aleksandr Vladimirovich St Petersburg 11/08/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 2 year(s) and 1   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; 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   2,200   12907/21 26/02/2021 Yerlan Yuryevich USAYEV 1996 Abdullayev Damir Rafaelevich Astrakhan 30/08/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Trusovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court 3 year(s) and 18   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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,100   14883/21 16/02/2021 Aziyat Mikhaylovich ORUSTUK 1985     14/04/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Emelyanovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 3   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   2,600   14903/21 17/02/2021 Aleksandr Nikolayevich VISHNYAKOV 1988 Dunin Andrey Aleksandrovich Kozmodemyansk 11/11/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Gornomariyskiy District Court of Mariy El Republic; Supreme Court of Mariy El Republic 1 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 6   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   2,100   15558/21 16/03/2021 Ilya Vladimirovich KUFMAN 1969 Kozinets Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Moscow 02/09/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 15   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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding   2,100   15677/21 05/03/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich BELOUSOV 1987 Artemova Tatyana Anatolyevna Moscow 17/04/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Moscow Garrison Military Court, Second Western Circuit Military Court, Appeal Military Court 3 year(s) and 5   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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order of the Second Western Circuit Military Court, on 01/10/2020, appeal decision by the Appeal Military Court, on 29/10/2020 4,000   16293/21 19/03/2021 Akif Choban ogly BADALOV 1964 Yampolskaya Oksana Yuryevna Moscow 07/05/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary of the Chuvash Republic; Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary; Shcherbinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 10   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   3,500   17831/21 18/03/2021 Dmitriy Viktorovich YAKUSHEV 1980     19/04/2017 to 27/07/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 4 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 9   day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   4,400   18064/21 12/03/2021 Anton Ivanovich STARK 1987 Varlakova Anna Vladimirovna Yekaterinburg 01/12/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, Tverskoy Districty Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Sverdlovsk Regional Court, First Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 9   month(s) and 16   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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     4,000   18069/21 31/03/2021 Dilfuza Mamasharifovna CHUTBAYEVA 1971 Khlystov Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Moscow 02/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 15   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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   2,400   19201/21 22/03/2021 Aleksey Alekseyevich KHODYREV 1987 Ilyin Oleg Valentinovich Moscow 26/02/2020 - 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 6   month(s) and 22   day(s)   failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts   2,700   20375/21 14/04/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich NEVSKIY 1966 Nasonov Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow 17/11/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 10   month(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   2,000   20541/21 29/03/2021 Ivan Valeryevich LYSOV 1991 Li Natalya Petrovna St Petersburg 22/08/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kalininskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 26   day(s)     Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 3,100   21102/21 29/03/2021 Kirill Mikhaylovich LYNNIK 1994     14/02/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022   Sovetskiy Distrcit Court of Krasnoyarsk, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 4 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 3   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   4,800   24213/21 24/02/2021 Rustam Mukharamovich NAFIKOV 1994     19/04/2017 to 27/07/2021 Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 4 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 9   day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   4,400   24229/21 24/02/2021 Nikolay Vladimirovich ISTOMIN 1994     16/04/2017 to 27/07/2021 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 4 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 12   day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   4,400   24230/21 08/03/2021 Ilshat Ildarovich ORLOV 1988     18/02/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 30   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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   2,700   25740/21 30/04/2021 Sergey Petrovich KALININ 1963 Knyazkin Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow 03/11/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 14   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; 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   2,100   26274/21 21/04/2021 Pavel Nikolayevich PUSHKANOV 1985     20/04/2017 to 27/07/2021 Leninsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Novo-Savinovsky Distirct Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 4 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 8   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; collective detention orders   4,400   26732/21 02/05/2021 Anatoliy Alekseyevich STEPANOV 1989     20/12/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 4 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 28   day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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   4,900   28089/21 06/05/2021 Denis Aleksandrovich MARTYNIN 1994     21/09/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 11   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   4,000   28607/21 14/05/2021 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich AKHMEDOV 1981     13/10/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 11   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; 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   3,000   30589/21 15/05/2021 Rishat Eduardovich NIGMATZYANOV 1996     30/09/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Almetyevsk Town Court of Tatarstan Republic, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 18   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 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - order - Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, 30/04/2021, appeal lodged on 04/05/2021; appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court, on 26/05/2021 4,500   31474/21 28/05/2021 Guzer Valeryevich KHASHUKAYEV 1980 Speranskiy Artur Olegovich Moscow 30/01/2019 - 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, First Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 18   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; collective detention orders   3,800   33430/21 03/06/2021 Lenar Gumarovich RAKHMATULLIN 1986     23/05/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zelenodolsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Pestrechinskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 25   day(s)   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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 15/12/2020, Fourth Appellate Court, 21/01/2021;   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 18/01/2021, Fourth Appellate Court, 18/02/2021 3,900   35298/21 30/06/2021 Anton Arkadyevich MOZGOVOY 1988     07/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 10   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was kept in a cage on several occasions during the proceedings in the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, from 01/09/2020 to 28/04/2021 9,750   35393/21 07/06/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich SAZONOV 1982     21/02/2017 to 27/07/2021 Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 4 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 7   day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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     4,600   37883/21 13/07/2021 Igor Razmikovich MNATSAKANOV 1977 Savin Aleksandr Vasilyevich Stavropol 12/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court, the Third Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 5   day(s)   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:   Stavropol Regional Court, 07/04/2022, appeal lodged on 09/04/2022, Third Appellate Court, 19/05/2022 2,000   39065/21 29/07/2021 Vitaliy Vilayatovich MUSAYEV 1989 Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich Astrakhan 02/07/2020 to 07/10/2021 Nevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Second Western Circuit Military Court, Appellate Military Court 1 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 6   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Second Western Circuit Military Court, 17/08/2021, Appellate Military Court, 01/11/2021 1,800   40912/21 30/07/2021 Anatoliy Nikolayevich RYKOV 1979 Strelkova Yuliya Vladimirovna Moscow 17/10/2018 - 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, First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of the RF, Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow 3 year(s) and 11   month(s)   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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Supreme Court of Russia, 29/12/2020, Supreme Court of Russia sitting as an appellate court, 18/02/2021;   Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, 31/03/2021, Moscow City Court, 11/05/2021,   Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - SIZO-5 Moscow; refusals on the ground to preserve the confidentiality of investigation; no communication with relatives 5,300   43578/21 01/12/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BELOV 1982 Ovchynnykov Oleksandr Strasbourg 26/08/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Centralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appeal Court 3 year(s) and 22   day(s)   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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 09/03/2021, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 09/06/2021;   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 20/05/2021, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 07/09/2021;   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 08/09/2021, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/10/2021;   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 01/12/2021, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 08/02/2022,   Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk, 26/08/2019 - pending: physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits with the applicant’s wife, refusals of long-term family visits,   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 4,600   44954/21 23/08/2021 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich GURTYAKOV 1984 Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich Nea Skiony 22/03/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kir