CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 October 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 48571/20 Irakliy Robertovich DZHANDZHGAVA against Russia lodged on 2 November 2020 communicated on 22 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s right to be brought promptly before a judge on account of his two-month detention without appearance before one following his arrest on 26 August 2020 on the basis of a domestic arrest warrant issued by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Murmansk on 28 June 2016. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following his arrest, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Vakhitov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18232/11 and 2 others, §§ 50-51, 31 January 2017)?