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 } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 FILIPPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 49118/21 and 31 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 Filippov 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, 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. 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint 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 (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 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 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; 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]     49118/21 23/09/2021 Leonid Iosifovich FILIPPOV 1960 Krikun Leonid Leonidovich St Petersburg 16/03/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vsevolozhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court 1 year(s) and 6 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 - Vsevolozhsk Town Court on 15/06/2021, Leningrad Regional Court on 08/07/2021 and 30/07/2021 (videoconference),   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention: excessive judicial review of detention   Vsevolozhsk Town Court, 13/05/2021, appeal lodged on 15/05/2021, appeal decision by the Leningrad Regional Court on 08/07/2021;   Vsevolozhsk Town Court, 15/06/2021, appeal lodged on 21/06/2021, appeal decision by the Leningrad Regional Court on 30/07/2021 9,750     49775/21 04/08/2021 Ilfat Ilgizarovich KHAYRUTDINOV 1988     13/06/2019 - 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 Republic of Tatarstan, the Fourth Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction 3 year(s) and 3 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 Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention: excessive judicial review of detention   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 12/05/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 10/06/2021   3,900     50952/21 28/09/2021 Yevgeniy Gennadyevich KORMUSHKIN 1986 Myltsyn Dmitriy Andreyevich Moscow 17/02/2021 to 13/08/2021 Perovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 5 month(s) and 28   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 1,000     51361/21 28/09/2021 Konstantin Vladimirovich YEGOROV 1980 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg 02/04/2021 to 23/11/2021 Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 7 month(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 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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was held in a metal cage during the proceedings concerning the prolongation of his pre-trial detention on 27/05/2021 and 28/07/2021 in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 9,750     52599/21 11/10/2021 Anton Olegovich KAPILEVICH 1985 Suslova Irina Aleksandrovna Vyborg 04/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vyborg Town Court of Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13   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 in a metal cage during hearings in the Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region and, via video link, in the Leningrad Regional Court, 05/06/2020 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022 9,750     53505/21 21/10/2021 Vladimir Petrovich MAKAROV 1960 Svechnikova Inessa Vadimovna Moscow 08/09/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 9 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   2,100     53517/21 05/10/2021 Yuriy Pavlovich ZHDANOV 1954 Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow 26/03/2021 to 19/12/2021 Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court 8 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   1,000     53800/21 19/10/2021 Denis Olegovich PAVLOV 1991 Shovdin Yuriy Aleksandrovich Kosmodemyanskiy 29/08/2017 to 16/11/2021 Moscow City Court, Zuzinskiy District Court of Moscow, Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 4 year(s) and 2 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow, 24/02/2021, appeal lodged on 26/02/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 25/05/2021 4,800     54081/21 14/10/2021 Sergey Pavlovich YURIN 1978 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow 11/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention and defects in the judicial examination of the detention matters:   Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, 31/03/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 11/05/2021;   Khamovnicheskiy District Court, 07/06/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 17/08/2021;   Khamovnicheskiy District Court, 23/08/2021, no review,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention 2,300   54444/21 04/10/2021 Askar Linarovich GAYNULLIN 1997     21/07/2020 - 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 Republic of Tatarstan, Fourth Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27   day(s)   collective detention orders; 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   2,200   55957/21 11/10/2021 Anna Vasilyevna MALYSHEVA 1976     19/04/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Novo-Savinskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   5,000   56373/21 28/10/2021 Roman Mikhaylovich UCHACHEV 1968     01/09/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Serpukhov Town Court of Moscow, Moscow Regional Court, the First Appellate Court 5 year(s) and 16 day(s)   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; collective detention orders   5,000   56933/21 25/10/2021 Ilya Mikhaylovich GLUSHKO 1984 Revyakin Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Leningradskaya 30/05/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kanevskiy District Court of Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18   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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding   1,400   56986/21 25/10/2021 Anatoliy Anatolyevich KUZNETSOV 1975     16/12/2019 to 16/08/2021 Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 8 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 - Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 18/12/2019 - 16/08/2021 9,750   57834/21 09/11/2021 Denis Valeryevich SEMIN 1996 Grigoryev Aleksey Valentinovich Vyborg 10/05/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 7 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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court, 16/07/2020 - 16/09/2021 9,750   57894/21 19/11/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BUTSIN 1976 Lebedev Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Moscow 10/03/2021 - 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 6 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; collective detention orders   1,700   57926/21 05/11/2021 Aleksey Viktorovich YEGOROV 1982 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka 08/09/2020 - 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 9 day(s)   collective detention orders; 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow, 06/05/2021, appeal lodged on 12/05/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 07/06/2021 2,600   58567/21 25/10/2021 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich LARIONOV 1990     12/04/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Ufimskiy District Court of Bashkortostan Republic, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 29/04/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 28/05/2021 5,100   58696/21 17/11/2021 Artem Aleksandrovich ALATYREV 1994     29/07/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appeal Court 3 year(s) and 1 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 30/04/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appeal Court on 28/05/2021   3,700   59090/21 11/11/2021 Stanislav Aleksandrovich FEDORCHENKO 1986 Kostyushev Vladimir Yuryevich Moscow 10/04/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 5 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   2,600   60130/21 22/11/2021 Madina Madibroyimovna ISLOMOVA 1984 Petropavlovskiy Vladimir Nikolayevich Lytkarino 31/08/2017 to 19/08/2021 Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20   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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   4,000   60319/21 17/11/2021 Sergey Vladislavovich SHIN 1991     21/04/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Nizhnekamskiy Town Court, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 4 year(s) and 4 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   4,500   60653/21 24/11/2021 Dmitriy Igorevich ROSHCHUPKIN 1994 Kostyushev Vladimir Yuryevich Moscow 05/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Cheremushinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12   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   3,800   61232/21 23/11/2021 Aleksey Vasilyevich BRIZHAN 1978 Speranskiy Artur Olegovich Moscow 28/08/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow; Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; First appellate court. 2 year(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 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   2,100   61490/21 15/12/2021 Zamir Aytekovich BORSOV 1960 Vardaya Levan Viktorochi Moscow 26/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Supreme Court 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22   day(s)   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   3,700   129/22 29/11/2021 Ayrat Rustamovich GATAULLIN 1990     27/06/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Tatarstan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan, Fourth Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders; 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   3,300   846/22 08/12/2021 Ilshat Ildusovich AKHMETYANOV 1991     22/05/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Aktanyshskiy District Court of Tatarstan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan, Fourth Appellate Court 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   4,400   942/22 17/12/2021 Nikolay Sergeyevich POPOV 1978     03/07/2020 - 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 2 month(s) and 14   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   2,300   1545/22 14/12/2021 Maksim Yuryevich KOLOGREYEV 1986     07/10/2020 - 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 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10   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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders   2,000   1903/22 09/12/2021 Ramzan Zelimkhanovich ISRAILOV 1997 Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich Rostov-on-Don 11/08/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022     Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court, Third Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 1 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   2,200   3684/22 27/12/2021 Shamil Khavazhiyevich SADULAYEV 1995 Pestovskaya Yelena Viktorovna Rostov-on-Don 21/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy Distrisct Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 27   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; 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   1,500   3894/22 27/12/2021 Maksim Nikolayevich KHOKHLOV 1982     16/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s) and 7 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention: excessive length of the judicial review of detention:   Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/06/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 02/07/2021;   Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 12/10/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 03/12/2021 4,300     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.