CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juin 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF SULEYMANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 5214/18 and 23 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Suleymanov 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 16 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 8.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Idalov v. Russia   [GC], no.   5825/03, 22 May 2012;   Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§   41 ‑ 44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references). 9.     In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings;   Alekhin v. Russi a , no. 10638/08, §§   146 ‑ 55, 30   July 2009, relating to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention and lengthy review of detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention; Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences; Savva Terentyev v. Russia , no. 10692/09, §§ 41-87, 28   August 2018, and Ivanov v. Russia [Committee], no. 62364/10, §§ 11-27, 23/06/2020, as to criminal conviction for insulting a public official; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9   April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees; Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos.   27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to unlawful deprivation of liberty; and Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020, regarding unlawful search. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about a detainee’s right to attend funerals of a close relative and 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). 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 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 finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 June 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]     5214/18 19/01/2018 Ruslan Vasilyevich SULEYMANOV 1979 Bondarenko Yuliya Viktorovna Moscow 30/05/2016 to 19/04/2019 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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 City Court on 29/08/2017, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court (Appeal Chamber) on 10/10/2017 3,600     44704/18 10/09/2018 Magomed Khamzatovich KHAZBIYEV 1979 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 11/01/2018 to 27/11/2018 Magasskiy District Court of the Ingushetia Republic, Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 10 month(s) and 17 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; 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 - Magasskiy District Court of the Ingushetia Republic, 21/06/2018 - 27/11/2018,   Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression - Conviction of insulting a public official for publishing a video in which he called “villain” the head of the Ingushetia Republic; final decision: Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic, 26/02/2019, 2 years and 8 months of imprisonment and fine of RUB 50,000 9,750     48791/18 04/10/2018 Dmitriy Yuryevich GOREV 1976 Zinnatullin Marat Munirovich Krasnodar 06/04/2017 to 06/04/2018 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court 1 year(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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,100     50193/18 16/10/2018 Artem Vyacheslavovich LYUBIMOV 1976     01/09/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Ramenskoye Town Court, Moscow Regional Court 1 year(s) and 16 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 31/03/2018, 9.55   p.m. - 02/04/2018, 11.30 a.m.; raised in administrative proceedings, in particular, on 16/04 and 22/05/2018; the applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: 22/05/2018, Moscow Regional Court; administrative detention of 15   days 5,000     58880/18 27/11/2018 Konstantin Pavlovich TARAN 1979     16/08/2018 to 29/12/2021 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 4 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   3,500     8940/19 07/02/2019 Maksim Aleksandrovich KOSAREV 1972 Terekhov Ivan Viktorovich Moscow 16/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - "Urgent" search of the applicant’s flat on 19/02/2018, Investigator of the Moscow City Investigative Committee; 20/02/2018, two-tier judicial review of the lawfulness of the search, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 10/10/2018; no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials, 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),   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order by the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow on 17/02/2021, appeal lodged on 24/02/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 16/03/2021 9,750     14931/19 15/03/2019 Vladislav Yevgenyevich BABIYCHUK 1981 Magomadov Andarbek Sharanovich Moscow 19/12/2018 to 30/09/2020 Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow, Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Moscow City Court, St   Petersburg City Court 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s)   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 - Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow, Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Moscow City Court, St   Petersburg City Court, from 21/1/2018 to 30/09/2020,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow on 21/12/2018, appeal lodged on 24/12/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 31/01/2019;   Detention order by the Kolpinskiy District Court of St   Petersburg on 30/05/2019, appeal lodged on 07/06/2019, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 17/07/2019;   Detention order by the Kolpinskiy District Court of St   Petersburg on 29/08/2019, appeal lodged on 30/08/2019, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 09/10/2019,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 9,750     28944/19 20/05/2019 Yuriy Lvovich ORESHKIN 1968 Belov Mikhail Borisovich Moscow 22/06/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 26 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders   4,300     38672/19 21/05/2019 Kirill Gennadyevich LASKIN 1971 Kamakin Maksim Ivanovich St Petersburg 05/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 day(s) 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - St Petersburg City Court on 12/03/2019,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg on 08/02/2019, appeal lodged on 11/02/2019, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 12/03/2019;   Detention order by the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 01/04/2019, appeal lodged on 04/04/2019, appeal decision by the St   Petersburg City Court on 24/04/2019;   Detention order by the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 17/05/2019, appeal lodged on 20/05/2019, appeal decision by the St   Petersburg City Court 19/06/2019;   Detention order by the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 31/07/2019, appeal lodged on 05/08/2019, appeal decision by the St   Petersburg City Court on 03/09/2019;   Detention order by the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 18/09/2019, appeal lodged on 23/09/2019, appeal decision by the St   Petersburg City Court on 23/10/2019 9,750   43577/19 08/08/2019 Sergey Vladimirovich GERASIMOV 1969 Karakasiyan Artem Vaniyanovich Moskva 10/10/2018 to 22/08/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 10 month(s) and 13 day(s) 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; collective detention orders Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, 11/10/2018 - 06/06/2019 9,750   46700/19 26/08/2019 Vagan Leonovich ABGARYAN 1970 Avanesyan Artur Albertovich Moscow 14/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 3 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; collective detention orders             3,800   47517/19 28/08/2019 Michael John CALVEY 1967 Kletochkin Dmitry Vitalyevich Moscow 14/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 3 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   3,800   55063/19 11/10/2019 Maksim Nikolayevich MIROSHNIK 1982 Gaydaenko Andrey Alekseyevich Moscow 04/12/2018 - 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 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 day(s) 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   4,000   3372/20 15/11/2019 Mikhail Alekseyevich SMYKOV 1978 Morozov Kirill Alekseyevich Krasnodar 28/11/2018 to 15/05/2019 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kirov, Kirov Regional Court 5 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   1,000   4294/21 14/01/2021 Andrey Vitalyevich GALOCHKA 1972     23/01/2020 - 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 7 month(s) and 25 day(s) 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; collective detention orders Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 20/03/2020 - 20/04/2021; van, transit cell; lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, 0.4 - 1.8 sq. m per person,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, 24/01/2020 - 20/04/2021,   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IZ-Moscow, since 23/01/2020 and possibly ongoing as of 16/09/2022 9,750   44633/21 02/07/2021 Lyubov Aleksandrovna KAPRAVAYA 1979 Tazov Oleg Vladimirovich Moscow 04/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022         Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 13 day(s) 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:   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court on 05/02/2021, appeal lodged on 08/02/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 15/03/2021;   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court on 01/04/2021, appeal lodged on 05/04/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 28/04/2021 2,300   45683/21 25/08/2021 Igor Nikolayevich PYATIGORETS 1963 Podgornaya Svetlana Anatolyevna Rostov-na-Donu 19/04/2019 - 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,   Ust-Donetskiy District Court of the Rostov Region, Rostov Regional Court, Third Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29 day(s) 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   3,500   49549/21 09/09/2021 Ayrat Aydarovich KAMALOV 1978 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan 18/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 30 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   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, on 19/02/2021, appeal lodged on 25/02/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 22/03/2021;   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 14/04/2021, appeal lodged on 16/04/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 31/05/2021 2,200   53523/21 12/10/2021 Yevgeniy Yuryevich MAKSIMOV 1983 Lashkina Natalya Anatolyevna Mikhaylovsk 28/01/2021 to 10/09/2021 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court 7 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   1,000   55098/21 08/11/2021 Pavel Alekseyevich MASLOVSKIY 1956 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg 24/12/2020 - 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 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint     1,900   58660/21 26/11/2021 Viktor Mikhaylovich KANEVSKIY 1982 Lipatenkov Vyacheslav Borisovich Sverdlovskyy 04/02/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022           Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 13 day(s) 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; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, on 01/07/2021, appeal lodged on 03/07/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 16/08/2021 2,300   924/22 22/12/2021 Aleksey Leonidovich KRISHTOPA 1980 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg 04/03/2021 - 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 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol on 31/05/2021, appeal lodged on 02/06/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 26/07/2021,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 2,200   3193/22 14/12/2021 Igor Yakovlevich SHAPIRO 1970 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog 11/10/2021 - 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 11 month(s) and 6 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     1,000   16802/22 09/03/2022 Vitaliy Vyacheslavovich KOLESNIKOV 1972 Goryunov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow 27/01/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow Regional Court, First Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 7 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 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Moscow Regional Court on 02/09/2021, appeal lodged on 04/09/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 06/10/2021 3,300     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.