CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 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 } .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 } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; 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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .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 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 54727/14 and 21 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fetisov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 8.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Idalov v. Russia   [GC], no.   5826/03, 22 May 2012; Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§   41 ‑ 44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references). 9.     In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia   [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12, ECHR   2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies; 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 (CAO); and Tomov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about unfairness of proceedings. 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 27 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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]     54727/14 25/07/2014 Gleb Gennadyevich FETISOV 1966 Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg 28/02/2014 to 14/08/2015 Basmannyy District Court, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 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; 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 of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 16/02/2015, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 23/03/2015;   Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 24/02/2015, appeal lodged on 27/02/2015, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court (Appeal Chamber) on 14/04/2015;   Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 14/05/2015, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court (Appeal Chamber) on 23/06/2015         2,100     24424/17 17/03/2017 Aleksey Aleksandrovich ZELENSKIY 1981 Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich Paris 26/06/2015 to 11/07/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Meshchanskiy District Court, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 16   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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; economic crime; organized group Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow on 04/12/2018, appeal lodged on 07/12/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 19/02/2019 4,600     75180/17 19/10/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich OSIPOV 1977 Boychenko Yegor Leonidovych Strasbourg 14/12/2016 to 22/11/2018 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 9   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; economic crime           2,000     75539/17 19/10/2017 Pavel Viktorovich TISHCHENKO 1973 Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich Paris 29/06/2015 to 11/07/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 13   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to 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; economic crime in an organised group Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Basmannyy District Court on 26/05/2017, appeal lodged on 29/05/2017, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 10/07/2017 4,600     1352/19 17/12/2018 Oleg Artushevich MKRTCHAN 1966 Popovskiy Igor Olegovich Moscow 05/02/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 12   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 03/10/2018, appeal lodged on 09/10/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 02/11/2018 5,300     12178/19 21/02/2019 Oleg Mikhaylovich PESHCHERIN 1978 Neudachin Yevgeniy Valeryevich Voronezh 19/07/2018 - 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 1   month(s) and 29   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to 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; economic nature of crime   4,200     12381/19 25/02/2019 Ruslan Gennadyevich OSHUROV 1976 Dluzhevskiy Yevgeniy Georgiyevich Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy 21/05/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy Town Court, Kamchatka Regional Court 4 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 27   day(s) 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;   4,400     18081/19 18/03/2019 Aleksandr Vitalyevich PIVOVAROV 1966 Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich Paris 29/05/2015 to 11/07/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 13   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to 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; economic crime in an organised group Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 09/10/18, appeal lodged on 11/10/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court, 01/11/18;   Detention order by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow on 04/12/2018, appeal lodged on 06/12/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 19/02/2019 4,700     25382/19 16/04/2019 Igor Aleksandrovich PRONIN 1978     26/10/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court 3 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 22   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; economic nature of crime Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, between 27/10/2018 and 13/11/2018,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, between 13/11/2018 and 15/02/2019, overcrowding, passive smoking, no allocated seat, 0.3- 0.75   sq.   m of personal space 9,750   42413/19 06/08/2019 Dmitriy Alekseyevich FROLOV 1969 Akimov Aleksey Yuryevich Moscow 24/04/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Moscow Garrison Military Court, Second Western Circuit Military Court 3 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 24   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by van starting on 11/06/2019, possibly ongoing as of 16/09/2022, 0.4 sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, no access to medical assistance,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Moscow Garrison Military Court, at the criminal hearing on 24/06/2019 9,750   44365/19 12/08/2019 Maksim Sergeyevich VLADIMIROV 1978 Mitusova Natalya Aleksandrovna Khimki 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; 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   47101/19 27/08/2019 Ivan Nikolayevich ZYUZIN 1983 Lezhnikov Aleksey Sergeyevich 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 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; economic crime   3,100   50161/19 31/08/2019 Philippe DELPAL 1972 Kharitonov Dmitriy Valeryevich Moscow 14/02/2019 to 15/08/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 6   month(s) and 2   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; economic crime             1,000   47521/21 30/08/2021 Yelisey Aleksandrovich NIKITIN 1978 Balyshev Viktor Viktorovich Uvelskiy 29/07/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Yuzhnouralsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region, Chelyabinsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 19   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,200   51105/21 23/09/2021 Anatoliy Sergeyevich KOMOLOV 1992     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 the Tatarstan Republic, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   2,200   57096/21 29/10/2021 Alla Mikhaylovna GUTNIKOVA 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 14/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 3   day(s) failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   1,600   57732/21 08/11/2021 Oleg Aleksandrovich DOMOROSHCHIN 1978     19/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022           Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 29   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; 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 - cage, Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, in the hearings between 19/06/2020 and 16/06/2021 9,750   58028/21 08/11/2021 Nikolay Vasilyevich KORNEYEV 1973 Kostetskiy Denis Gennadiyevich Moscow 17/03/2021 - 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) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 19/03/2021, appeal lodged on 25/03/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow Regional Court on 12/05/2021;   Detention order by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 13/05/2021, appeal lodged on 14/05/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow Regional Court on 07/07/2021 2,100   9271/22 21/01/2022 Kirill Viktorovich UKRAINTSEV 1990 Polyakova Veronika Valeryevna Moscow 27/04/2022 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4   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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Savelovskiy District Court on 27/04/2022, appeal lodged on 29/04/2022, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 23/05/2022;   Detention order by the Savelovskiy District Court on 23/06/2022, appeal lodged on 28/06/2022, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 25/07/2022;   Detention order by the Savelovskiy District Court on 22/07/2022, appeal lodged on 25/07/2022, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 07/09/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/07/2021,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Protest of courier’s union in Moscow on 30/10/2020, conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, by the Moscow City Court, on 21/07/2021, sentenced to a fine of RUB   20,000                     6,000   11465/22 29/01/2022 Aleksandr Gabriyelovich VINOKUROV 1990 Zorin Aleksandr Sergeyevich Moscow 24/11/2020 - 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 9   month(s) and 24   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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; collective detention orders   2,000   25387/22 23/05/2022 Yuliya Vasilyevna LYGA 1986 Trufanova Oksana Nikolayevna Moscow 18/03/2022 - 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 5   month(s) and 30   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   1,000   34749/22 09/04/2022 Vladimir Aleksandrovich METELKIN 1994 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 14/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Justice of the Piece no. 208 of Dorogomilovo in Moscow, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 3   day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Basmannyy District Court on 10/09/2021, appeal lodged on 13/09/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 11/10/2021;   Detention order by the Justice of the Piece no. 208 of Dorogomilovo in Moscow on 09/11/2021, appeal decision by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow on 09/12/2021 2,100     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.