CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2016

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF5299C86 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 1 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 31796/10 Aleksandr Vasilievich REVTYUK against Russia lodged on 22 April 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vasilievich Revtyuk, is a Russian national who was born in 1984 and lives in St Petersburg. He is represented before the Court by Ms O. Solod, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. On 2 October 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of raping Ms   K. who was an employee of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court in St   Petersburg and also daughter of its former president and currently active Judge   K. On 4 October 2009 Judge R. of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court remand the applicant in custody. He rejected the challenge which the applicant’s lawyer raised to the entire composition of the District Court because of a link between the alleged victim and the position of her father. On 26 October 2009 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, overriding once again the applicant’s challenge. On 30 November 2009 a deputy president of the City Court referred the investigator’s application for an extension order to the Oktyabrskiy District Court for consideration. The District Court granted the application on the following day. On 11 December 2009 the City Court upheld that decision on appeal. Subsequently, on 31 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia determined that the decision to refer the application to another District Court had been unlawful. On 30 December 2009 a further extension was granted by the President of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court, Judge Sh., who again rejected the applicant’s challenge. On 26 January 2010 the City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. On 27 January and 27 February 2010 extension orders were issued by judges of the Kalininskiy District Court, having territorial jurisdiction over the place of the applicant’s detention. Those were upheld on appeal on 25   March and 8 April 2010. On 11 March 2010 the case was referred to the Vasileostrovskiy District Court for trial and allocated to Judge Sh. On 23 March 2010 Judge Sh. accepted the applicant’s challenge to the entire District Court and asked the City Court to determine the appropriate venue. By the same decision, Judge Sh. extended the applicant’s detention until 12 May 2010. Subsequently, on the last day of the extended period the Presidium of the City Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the decision of 23 March in the part concerning the detention matter but extended the applicant’s detention until 12 August. On 15 April 2010 a deputy President of the City Court determined that the trial would be held in the Petrogradskiy District Court. On 31 March 2011 the Petrogradskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains about an infringement of his right to an impartial tribunal when considering the detention matters.     Questions to the parties   Was the applicant’s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts deciding on the detention matter meet the requirement of impartiality implicit in Article 5 §   4 of the Convention (see Lavents v. Latvia , no. 58442/00, § 81, 28   November 2002, and D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 42, ECHR 2001 ‑ III)?