CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 7 January 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35878/08 Denis Vladimirovich PANOV against Russia lodged on 29 May 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Denis Vladimirovich Panov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1977 and is serving a prison sentence in the Tambov   Region. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 17   July 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery in concert with G. two days earlier. On 18   July 2007 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial. His detention was extended on several occasions. In particular, on 16   October 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17   December 2007. The court reasoned as follows: “... there are no grounds to justify changing or lifting the measure of restraint earlier imposed on [the applicant] ... given that he is charged with a serious crime that entails a custodial sentence of up to ten years’ imprisonment, he does not have a permanent place of residence in the Russian Federation, and he is a repeat offender. Accordingly, the investigating authorities have grounds to believe that, if he were released, [the applicant] might abscond [and/or] continue his criminal activities.” On 17   October 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 16   October 2007 with the Moscow City Court. On 11   December 2007 the District Court scheduled the trial for 21   December 2007. The court ordered that the applicant and G. remain in custody pending trial. On 17   January 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 19   March 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction, in substance, on appeal. The applicant’s statement of appeal against the detention order of 16   October 2007 appears to have been misplaced by a clerk at the City Court. It was found in 2008, and on 22   August 2008 the City Court sent it back to the District Court so that the latter could make the necessary arrangements for the appeal hearing. According to the applicant, his appeal has not been considered to date. On 2   April 2012 the Morshansk District Court of the Tambov Region brought the applicant’s sentence into conformity with the latest amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and reduced his sentence by two months. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 5 of the Convention, that the Moscow City Court failed to examine his appeal against the detention order of 16   October 2007. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on 16   October 2007, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the Moscow City Court examine the appeal lodged by the applicant on 17   October 2007 against the detention order of 16   October 2007? If so, did the review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention complaint take account of the “speed” requirement set forth in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?