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 }   Communicated on 1 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50173/06 Stanislav Andreyevich YASHIN against Russia lodged on 18 October 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Stanislav Andreyevich Yashin, is a Russian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Chelyabinsk. On 17 March 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and remanded him in custody pending a new trial, without giving any reasons for the application of the custodial measure. On 14 April 2006 the Yuzhnouralskiy District Court fixed the trial date and extended the remand measure, without giving reasons. Further extensions were approved on 15 June 2006 (upheld on appeal on 3 August 2006) and 15 September 2006. Each time the court used a stereotyped formula, paraphrasing the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The latter extension was limited to 17 December 2006. According to the applicant, his detention after that date had no legal basis. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 about the absence of reasons for extending his detention and about his unlawful detention after 17 December 2006.             Questions to the parties   Was the applicant’s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, what was the legal basis for his detention after 17 December 2006? Assuming it was based on an extension order which he was not aware of, was it compatible with Article 5 that he was not informed of the extension hearing and given an opportunity to participate?