CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 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 } .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 } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; 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 } .s965B0C41 { height:157.35pt } .sED4CC652 { height:175.7pt } .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 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF GRINEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3018/22 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 April 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Grinev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 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; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 107-38, 4   February 2020, regarding unlawful search. 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 to complain about the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In application no. 17240/22 the applicant also raised an additional complaint under Article 5 of the Convention. 15.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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 complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 17240/22 as inadmissible; 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 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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]     3018/22 27/12/2021 Aleksandr Viktorovich GRINEV 1968 Nechiporenko Natalya Aleksandrovna Moscow 21/07/2021 - 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 1 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 27   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; 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol on 15/09/2021, appeal lodged on 15/09/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 15/10/2021 1,600     3930/22 20/12/2021 Ayrat Maskhutovich FAYZULLIN 1989     24/01/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 3 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 24   day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group   3,800     6734/22 30/12/2021 Boris Nikolayevich YEVSTRATYEV 1965 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow 30/06/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Supreme Court, Chelyabinsk Regional Court, Second Appeal Court 1 year(s) and 2   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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   1,300     8010/22 21/01/2022 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DRYAGIN 1986 Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich Krasnodar 17/06/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court 1 year(s) and 3   month(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   1,300     9481/22 02/02/2022 Svetlana Aleksandrovna PODSTAVKINA 1973 Nechiporenko Natalya Aleksandrovna Moscow 07/09/2021 - 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 1 year(s) and 10   day(s)   failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, 09/09/2021, appeal lodged on 13/09/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/10/2021;   Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, 29/10/2021, appeal lodged on 29/10/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 23/11/2021,   Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - Search under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the applicant’s home authorised on 20/07/2021 by the Investigator of Stavropol Region conducted on 20/07/2021. The lawfulness of urgent search was confirmed by the domestic courts. Final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 19/10/2021. No adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect         9,750     11131/22 08/02/2022 Vladimir Olegovich VEDERNIKOV 1963 Khoroshev Ivan Aleksandrovich Krasnoyarsk 22/09/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk; Novosibirsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26   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, 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   2,000     11363/22 03/02/2022 Apti Uvaysovich VISAYEV 1985 Belova Yekaterina Borisovna Moscow 22/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Norilsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, First Eastern Circuit Military Court, Military Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 26   day(s)   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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearings in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk and in the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (video link from SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk) between 24/04/2021 and 11/01/2022,   Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region, refusal of short-term family visits, the applicant’s wife requested short-term family visits on 09/03/2022, 10/03/2022, 23/03/2022, 28/04/2022 and 10/05/2022 to no avail 9,750     11805/22 11/02/2022 Georgiy Stanislavovich SVETLITSKIY 1998 Abramov Pavel Arkadyevich Rostov-on-Don 06/08/2021 - 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 1 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 11   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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,200     11877/22 02/02/2022 Denis Nikolayevich KOVALEVICH 1998 Dobryanskiy Mark Vladimirovich Perm 29/01/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022               Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Perm, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm, Perm Regional Court 1 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 19   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   1,800   12636/22 16/02/2022 Aleksandr Vadimovich BONDARENKO 1997     09/11/2020 - 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, Fourth Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 10 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, on 29/12/2021, Appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court, on 26/01/2022 2,600   14146/22 14/02/2022 Valeriy Ivanovich MATSIYENKO 1969 Svechnikova Inessa Vadimovna Moscow 14/02/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zheleznogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 7   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; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint collective detention orders   2,800   14291/22 17/02/2022 Vadim Vyacheslavovich REDKIN 1958 Khoroshev Ivan Aleksandrovich Krasnoyarsk 22/09/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk; Novosibirsk Regional Court; Fifth Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26   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, 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   2,000   14647/22 22/02/2022 Aleksey Aleksandrovich SHAMARDIN 1978 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg 31/08/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Timashevskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court 1 year(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; 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 - Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Timashevskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court, 02/09/2021 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022 9,750   14726/22 27/02/2022 Anzor Akhmedovich DOGUSHEV 1978 Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna Moscow 09/07/2015 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow Regional Court, First Appellate Court 7 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 8   day(s)   collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Moscow Regional Court, on 24/06/2021, appeal lodged on 28/06/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court, on 01/09/2021 5,500   14733/22 21/02/2022 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich NAGORNYY 1981 Zyuzina Yevgeniya Mikhaylovna Voronezh 20/01/2021 to 04/01/2022 Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court 11   months and 16   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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court, between 07/09/2016 and 17/12/2021 during hearings on extension of pre-trial detention,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, on 01/09/2021, appeal decision by the Voronezh Regional Court, on 15/12/2021 9,750   16405/22 05/03/2022 Ramaz Gurbanovich MUSAYEV 1984     26/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022     Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court of the Sakhalin Region, Sakhalin Regional Court 2 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 22   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   2,200   17240/22 07/04/2022 Cheslav Cheslavich POPOV 1982     05/05/2017 to 09/12/2021 Zheleznogorsk Town Court of Kranoyarsk Region, Leninskiy Distrcit Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court 4 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 5   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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 4,800   18025/22 12/03/2022 Beslan Usamovich ASAKAYEV 1971 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka 09/07/2015 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Moscow Regional Court, First Appellate Court 7 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 8   day(s)   collective detention orders; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Moscow Regional Court, on 16/12/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court, on 24/01/2022 5,500   18266/22 12/03/2022 Sergey Vladimirovich KSENOFONTOV 1979 Salkov Maksim Gennadyevich 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; 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 and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, 09/04/2019 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/202 9,750   19133/22 13/03/2022 Sergey Aleksandrovich NEKRASOV 1986 Antonova Aliya Ibragimovna Yurga 03/12/2014 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo, Kemerovo Regional Court, Yurga Town Court of Kemerovo 7 year(s) and 9   month(s) and 14   day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order of the Yurga Town Court of the Kemerovo Region on 21/10/2021, appeal decision by the Kemerovo Regional Court on 01/12/2021 5,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.