CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 20 September 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3945/10 Klavdiya Nikolayevna SUKHONOSOVA against Russia lodged on 14 December 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was convicted in 2005 to a prison sentence of four years, which was suspended for a probationary period of four years. She was convicted in an unrelated case on 25 August 2008 by judge M. and was detained from 25   August to 27   November 2008. She was then detained again on 9   April 2009 when she was re-tried by judge G. and convicted of (i) “organising contraband of strong substances (not amounting to narcotic or psychotropic drugs)” by unspecified people, on unspecified dates and unspecified locations; (ii) under Article 234 of the Criminal Code for two episodes of a less severe offence (punishable by fines, compulsory labour or, at most, by up to three years’ imprisonment) relating to procurement, possession and supply of such “strong substances” (namely, weight-loss pills) in July-September 2007. Later on, those recent convictions were quashed. On 9 April 2009 she was convicted again and was sentenced to a combined sentence of five years’ imprisonment, taking into account the period in 2008, her detention since 9   April 2009 and the 2005 conviction, its suspension thereby being revoked. The appeal court upheld this new conviction but, later on, a fresh appeal hearing was required. On 12   August 2010 the appeal court quashed the conviction for the contraband charge since it was vague and unspecific, but upheld the conviction for the remainder. As a result, the appeal court imposed a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment (taking into account her detention from 25   August to 25 November 2008 and the period since 9   April 2009) and ordered her immediate release as such period had already been served. The applicant was released at 8 p.m. on 13   August 2010, already being deprived of her liberty for over nineteen months in total. She received a copy of the appeal decision in September 2010. In the meantime, on 15 September 2009 the Presidium of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court reclassified the 2005 charges, reduced the prison term and the probationary period (the latter, to two years); in view of the expiry of the statutory period the applicant was absolved from serving the sentence as amended. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention exceeding the eighteen months’ period as specified in the appeal decision of 12 August 2009; the allegedly arbitrary (and partly served) sentence of imprisonment arising from the contraband charge; and on account of the delayed release on 13 August 2009 (see Quinn v.   France , 22   March 1995, §§   39-43, Series A no. 311, and Bivolaru v.   Romania , no.   28796/04, §§ 103-107, 28 February 2017)?   2.     Were there violations of Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention on account of the inspection of the applicant’s letters to the Court dated 14   December 2009 and 19 April 2010 (see Yefimenko v. Russia , no. 152/04, §§ 135-65, 12   February 2013)? What does the phrase “the convict was explained the procedure for lodging a complaint” (as mentioned on the prison’s cover letters) mean? Does the listing of the applicant’s enclosures imply that the letters were inspected?