CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mai 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt }   Communicated on 22 May 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44360/17 Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ right to liberty and security of person. The applicants were arrested on suspicion of different crimes. The courts placed them under house arrest. They allege that the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest (see Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 104-105, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). Some of the applicants also complain about delayed review of their appeals against house-arrest orders or the courts’ refusal to examine their appeals (see, mutatis mutandis , Butusov v. Russia , no. 7923/04, §§   29 ‑ 35, 22 December 2009, Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, §§ 148-56, 23 October 2012) and violation of the right to compensation for unjustified house arrest (see, mutatis mutandis , Chuprikov v. Russia , no. 17504/07, §   99, 12 June 2014). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Questions in respect of all applicants   (a)     Was the length of the applicants’ house arrest in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   (b)     Having regard to the reasons expressly relied on by the domestic courts in the house-arrest orders, were the applicants’ house arrest justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   (c)     Did the authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicants, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   (d)     Where the applicants’ house arrest was extended after the date of the applicants’ last letter to the Court, the parties are invited to indicate the overall length of the house arrest and the reasons for the extension and submit the relevant house-arrest orders.   2.     Individual questions   Basiyeva v. Russia , no. 57261/17   (a)     Did the appeal court comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention when examining the applicant’s appeal against the house-arrest order of 26 December 2016? (b)     Did the appeal court examine the applicant’s appeal of 29 October 2016 against the court decision issued on 26 October 2016?   Geryugov v. Russia , no. 59102/17   (a)     Did the appeal court comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention when examining the applicant’s appeal against the house-arrest order of 29 May 2017? (b)     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for house arrest in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   Ryleyeva v. Russia , no. 59944/17   Did the appeal court examine the applicant’s appeal against the house ‑ arrest order issued on 30 November 2016?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   44360/17 14/06/2017 Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV 30/09/1965 Tula   Viktor Maksiyevich MAYEVSKIY   56930/17 10/07/2017 Yana Mikhaylovna KUZNETSOVA 12/09/1971 Izhevsk   Aleksey Anatolyevich VASILYEV   57261/17 31/07/2017 Fariza Kazbekovna BASIYEVA 06/09/1989 Vladikavkaz       59102/17 08/08/2017 Valeriy Aslanbekovich GERYUGOV 23/03/1963 Cherkessk   Mikhail Aleksandrovich OSHEROV   59944/17 06/08/2017 Aleksandra Andreyevna RYLEYEVA 25/05/1991 Moscow       80185/17 11/11/2017 Andrey Petrovich IVASHKIN 05/01/1978 Krasnoyarsk       81443/17 26/11/2017 Konstantin Arkadyevich TOMENCHUK 03/11/1973 Tula Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA