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 } .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 } .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 VASYANOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 56332/18 and 30 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 Vasyanovich 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; 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. 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 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 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]     56332/18 14/11/2018 Aleksey Igorevich VASYANOVICH 1987     22/08/2017 to 22/02/2019 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 6 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 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van, from 27/05/2019 to 29/05/2019, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, overcrowding, lack of fresh air,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 04/05/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 04/06/2018;   Moscow City Court, 16/08/2018, appeal decision by the Appeal Chamber of the Moscow City Court on 20/09/2018 2,200     49602/20 06/10/2020 Denis Aleksandrovich SERDYUKOV 1982     03/08/2016 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Naberezhnyye Chelny City Court, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court between 26/12/2018 and 14/07/2020,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 05/08/2016 to 09/12/2018, 0.25 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, inadequate temperature; van, 09/12/2018 to 01/03/2021, 0.25 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 9,750     14721/21 15/03/2021 Ilya Semenovich MARTYSHKIN 1967     14/08/2018 to 20/06/2022 Samarskiy District Court, Avtozavodskiy District Court of Tolyatti, Samara Regional Court 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 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; 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 - Samarskiy District Court, Avtozavodskiy District Court of Tolyatti, Samara Regional Court, 16/08/2018 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022 9,750     15053/21 25/02/2021 Valentin Valentinovich GORSHKOV 1974 Shumakova Irina Borisovna Moscow 22/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Nagatinskiy 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 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   2,200     26508/21 19/05/2021 Sumbat Amayakovich ABASOV 1966 Bazhinov Mikhail Aleksandrovich Belgorod 27/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod, Belgorod Regional Court 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21   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   2,300     27052/21 13/09/2021 Vladimir Aleksandrovich MOISEYENKO 1988     04/05/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Region Court 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 13   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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention: excessively lengthy review of detention:   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 17/03/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 06/04/2021 4,600     32022/21 01/08/2021 Darya Olegovna GRINKOVA 1998     22/05/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court 5 year(s) and 3 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; collective detention orders   5,000     35859/21 01/12/2021 Mikhail Vladimirovich MATVEYEV 1995     07/01/2017 to 04/06/2018     29/11/2018 to 22/03/2022 Nizhneingashskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region,   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29   day(s)   3 year(s) and 3 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders       4,900     37556/21 08/07/2021 Andrey Yevgenyevich ZARUBIN 1988     17/03/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Chita, Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalye Regional Court 2 year(s) and 6 month(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   2,600   37651/21 05/07/2021 Anna Valeryevna KHMELEVA 1985     11/08/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Surgut Town Court, Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court, Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, 3 year(s) and 1 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 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   3,200   37764/21 07/07/2021 Dmitriy Yuryevich MAKSIMOV 1985 Zyuzina Yevgeniya Mikhaylovna Voronezh 10/09/2018 to 27/04/2021 Ramonskiy District Court of Voronezh, Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18   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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Ramonskiy District Court of Voronezh, Leninskiy District court of Voronezh, between 14/09/2018 and 27/04/2021 9,750   38187/21 02/07/2021 Eres Demir-oolovich BALDANAY 1980     27/02/2018 to 09/06/2021 Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 3 year(s) and 3 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 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, 19/01/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 16/02/2021;   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 13/04/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 20/05/2021 3,900   38839/21 12/07/2021 Roman Igorevich ZAVARZIN 1982     05/05/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zelenodolskiy District 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 4 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 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, 15/12/2020, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 04/02/2021;   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 14/01/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 18/02/2021;   Pestrechinskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 10/02/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 24/03/2021   4,000   39870/21 21/06/2021 Marat Aramaisovich MUSTAFIN 1987     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 Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21   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 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:   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 25/03/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 21/04/2021 3,800   40302/21 27/07/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich NAGORNYY 1975 Stukova Viktoriya Nikolayevna Voronezh 05/09/2016 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court 6 year(s) and 12 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; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   5,000   40316/21 26/07/2021 Pavel Mikhaylovich YEFREMOV 1980     11/12/2017 - 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 Republic of Tatarstan 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 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   5,000   41258/21 21/07/2021 Oleg Vyacheslavovich ZHDANOV 1971 Pyatitskiy Yevgeniy Fedorovich Rostov-on-Don 01/10/2020 - 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, Fourth Cassation Court 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 16   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   2,000   42714/21 02/08/2021 Vitaliy Sergeyevich MUKHIN 1989 Dunin Andrey Aleksandrovich Kozmodemyansk 30/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18   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   1,500   42731/21 23/08/2021 Konstantin Viktorovich MARCHENKO 1968 Bochkarev Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Moscow 26/03/2019 - 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 5 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,600   43499/21 07/08/2021 Yevgeniy Valeryevich DANILIN 1986     02/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 15   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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 26/01/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 19/02/2021;   Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 30/03/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 21/05/2021 2,500   44359/21 17/08/2021 Maksim Aleksandrovich SERDYUCHENKO 1989 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog 28/01/2019 to 08/11/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court 2 year(s) and 9 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, 24/05/2021, appeal decision by the Rostov Regional Court on 21/06/2021   3,500   45363/21 30/08/2021 Sergey Yegorovich MARAKOV 1949 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 21/12/2020 to 11/10/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Grozny, Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic 9 month(s) and 21   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   45471/21 25/08/2021 Vladimir Yevgenyevich PISARENKO 1978 Androsova Nadezhda Sergeyevna Lipetsk 15/10/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy Disctrict Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk, Lipetsk Regional Court 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   4,000   45967/21 26/08/2021 Mikhail Anatolyevich VASILYEV 1968 Klyubin Sergey Nikolayevich Velikiy Novgorod 27/11/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022     Novgorod District Court of the Novgorod Region, Novgorod Regional Court 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21   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. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for a violation of Art. 5 (3) of the Convention 3,000   46624/21 03/09/2021 Magomet Abubakarovich AMKHADOV 1972 Yalmambetov Dzhalil Saydagamatovich Stavropol 28/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Taganskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20   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   2,100   46716/21 06/09/2021 Timur Anatolyevich ISKHAKOV 1969     07/02/2019 - 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 3 year(s) and 7 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention   3,800   47220/21 01/12/2021 Aleksey Vasilyevich SHEVCHUK 1974     27/08/2019 to 09/03/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11   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; 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; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 09/03/2021, appeal lodged on 15/03/2021, Appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 09/06/2021;   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 20/05/2021, appeal lodged on 21/05/2021, Appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 07/09/2021;   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 08/09/2021, appeal lodged on 13/09/2021, Appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 19/10/2021 3,200   47514/21 07/09/2021 Ruslan Rustemovich KHABEYEV 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 Tatarstan Republic 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; 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   2,200   47713/21 11/09/2021 Nikita Yevgenyevich MALYSHEV 1997     20/04/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 5 year(s) and 4 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; collective detention orders   5,000   48020/21 09/09/2021 Georgiy Sergeyevich SHKURKO 1962 Nechiporenko Natalya Aleksandrovna Moscow 10/09/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Moscow Harrison Military Court, Appellate Military Court, Second Western Circuit Military Court 3 year(s) and 7 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; 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     3,100   48990/21 16/09/2021 Yanis Maksimovich BIRCHAK 1990     31/03/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Privolzhye Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 17   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; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding   2,600     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.