CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD5EE884 { height:85.15pt } Published on 27 March 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no.   50/22 David Valeryevich SUROV against Russia and 17 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 March 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention relating to excessive length of pre-trial detention subject of well ‑ established case law of the Court (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention/house arrest Court which issued detention order / examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     50/22 05/12/2021 David Valeryevich SUROV 1999 Natalya Aleksandrovna Yazykova Maykop 11/03/2021 pending Maykop Town Court of Adygea Republic, Supreme Court of Adygea Republic More than 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention     2550/22* 15/12/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV 1977 Olga Pavlovna Tseytlina St Petersburg 22/06/2020 pending Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Second Appellate Court More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 28 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeals against the detention order of St Petersburg City Court of 02/08/2021, lodged on 04/08/2021 and 10/08/2021, were examined on 15/09/2021 by the Second Appellate Court; Appeals against the detention order of St   Petersburg City Court of 28/10/2021, lodged on 28/10/2021 and 29/10/2021, were examined on 25/11/2021 by the Second Appellate Court.     6597/22* 01/04/2022 Eldar Afrailovich GUSEYNOV 1986     21/03/2016 pending Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Regional Court More than 6 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 29 day(s)   collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed       8488/22* 22/01/2022 Timur Rimovich RAKHIMYANOV 1992     23/05/2018 pending Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court More than 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 27 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – the detention orders issued by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 29/06/2021, was upheld by the Fourth Appellate Court on 21/07/2021     10421/22* 01/02/2022 Aleksandr Sergeyevich RODIONOV 1959 Yelena Viktorovna Volkova Moscow 27/04/2021 pending Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)   collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding       12880/22* 31/01/2022 Pavel Vladimirovich NARKEVICH 1964 Igor Yuryevich Sayevets Moscow 08/07/2021 pending Krasnogorsk Town Court, Moscow Regional Court More than 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnogorsk Town Court, from 23/08/2021 to 20/10/2021     13141/22 02/02/2022 Sergey Anatolyevich TOROP 1961 Ivan Aleksandrovich Khoroshev Krasnoyarsk 22/09/2020 pending Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 28 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; collective detention orders       13251/22* 02/02/2022 Ilya Olegovich SNIGIREV 1999 Mark Vladimirovich Dobryanskiy Perm 30/07/2021 pending Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Perm, Perm Regional Court More than 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 20 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint       13513/22* 08/02/2022 Valentin Mikhaylovich SHCHUKIN 1955 Yuriy Mikhaylovich Kirillov Moscow 02/08/2021 pending Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 16 day(s)   failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts     14129/22* 10/02/2022 Eleonora Eduardovna CHECHENOVA 1992 Zaurbek Anatolyevich Anzarov Kislovodsk 11/02/2020 pending Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria Republic More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention     14403/22 21/02/2022 Damir Gazinurovich KHASANSHIN 1997     01/06/2020 pending Aviastroitelnyy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic More than 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention     15620/22 25/02/2022 Yevgeniy Ilyich SKATOV 1975     24/12/2020 pending Syktyvkar Town Court of Komi Republic; Supreme Court of Komi Republic More than 2 year(s) and 26 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice     16597/22 01/03/2022 Lachyn Yusif ogly MURADOV 1988 Aleksey Valentinovich Grigoryev Vyborg 19/11/2020 to 19/01/2022 Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 1 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage on numerous occasions during court hearings at Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region from 20/11/2020 to 19/01/2022   17349/22 25/02/2022 Aleksandr Vladimirovich ROZOCHKIN 1989     16/11/2019 pending Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow, Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Supreme Court of Russia More than 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 3 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders     18331/22 15/03/2022 Anton Aleksandrovich KOLOSKOV 1983     21/03/2021 pending Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 29 day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial     19935/22 11/03/2022 Konstantin Vasilyevich KHOROBRYY 1981     09/11/2014 pending Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangeksk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court More than 8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, on 24/12/2021; appeal lodged by the applicant on 27/12/2021; Appeal hearing - Second Appellate Court of Saint Petersburg, 03/02/2022   34008/22 07/02/2022 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich VYSOKIKH 1966     11/12/2014 pending Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Second Appellate Court More than 8 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, as the case progressed; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court of 16/09/2021 extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention was considered by the Second Appellate Court on 14/10/2021   34033/22 25/06/2022 Artem Gennadyevich PROTOPOPOV 1982 Oksana Gennadyevna Olgerdt Moscow 19/08/2021 pending Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 1 year(s) and 5 month(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding