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. 29567/10 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich VILKOV against Russia lodged on 21 April 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Vilkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Ivanovo. On 29 August 2008 the Gavrilovo-Posadskiy District Court of the Ivanovo Region, sitting in a single-judge formation composed of Judge Kr., remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of a large theft from the warehouse owned by Ms Ka. On 22 October and 24 December 2008 the District Court extended the authorised period of the applicant’s detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s criminal record. On 2 February 2009 the District Court, sitting in a single-judge formation composed of Judge R., granted a further extension which was upheld on appeal by the Ivanovo Regional Court on 17 March 2009. On 21 July 2009 the case against the applicant and two co-defendants was referred to the District Court for trial. The defendants chose to be tried by a three-judge panel. The President of the District Court asked the Regional Court for a change of venue since two out of four available District Court judges – Judge Kr. and Judge R. – had been relatives or friends of parties to the case. Judge Kr. had been friends with Ms Ka., the injured party, and their children lived together. Judge R.’s daughter was married to prosecutor Zh. who certified the charge sheet and referred the case for trial. On 31 July 2009 the District Court, sitting in a single-judge formation composed of Judge R., extended the applicant’s detention for a further six months. On 10 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld the extension on appeal. On 12 November 2009 the First Deputy President of the Regional Court granted a change of venue and referred the case for trial to the Leninskiy District Court. By the same decision, he extended the authorised detention period, without setting a time-limit or giving reasons. On 14 January 2010 the Leninskiy District Court fixed the opening date for the trial and extended the co-defendants’ detention in a single decision. On 9 February 2010 the Regional Court upheld the detention order. On 22 January 2010 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the extension order of 31 July 2009, and the appeal decision of 10 September 2009, on the ground that the composition of the bench was unlawful because Judge R. was related to the prosecutor Zh. It referred the detention matter for a new examination to the Leninskiy District Court. On 5 March 2010 the Presidium of the Regional Court considered the applicant’s allegation that the initial detention order of 29   August 2008 had been flawed because Judge Kr. had been a friend of the injured party in the case. Referring to the circumstances outlined in the application for a change of venue, which, in the Presidium’s view, cast doubt on Judge Kr.’s impartiality and objectivity when examining the detention matter, the Presidium quashed the detention order of 29 August 2008 and remitted the matter for a new examination by a different bench. On 16 April 2010 the Leninskiy District Court issued a new order for the applicant’s detention, referring to his criminal record and lack of registered place of residence. It did not set time-limit for the applicant’s detention. On 25 May 2010 the Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal. On 24 June 2010 a judge of the Regional Court rejected an application for supervisory review, finding that “the initial date for the application of the custodial measure [should] be 29 August 2008”. The applicant also filed an application for supervisory review of the extension order of 2 February 2009, indicating that Judge R. was the father-in-law of the prosecutor Zh. On 28 May 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation initiated supervisory review proceedings, acknowledging that the applicant’s submissions were meritorious in the light of the President’s request for a change of venue. The matter was referred for consideration to the Presidium of the Regional Court. On 25   June 2010 the Presidium rejected the application, finding that the prosecutor Zh. had not taken part in the hearing of 2 February 2009 and only joined the proceedings at a later stage when certifying the charge sheet on 20   July 2009. On 6 September 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation endorsed the Presidium’s decision. In the meantime, on 12 July 2010 the Leninskiy District Court granted a further extension of the applicant’s detention, referring again to the gravity of the charges and the criminal record. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention about the unlawful character and excessive length of his detention.     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)? Was the applicant’s detention based on relevant and sufficient reasons and were the proceedings conducted with special diligence, as required by Article 5 § 3?