CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } Published on 27 March 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   20331/21 David Aleksandrovich ARUTYUNYAN against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 10 March 2022, 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 which are the 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 Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case ‑ law     20331/21 25/03/2021 David Aleksandrovich ARUTYUNYAN 1984 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Savin Stavropol 11/08/2020 to 14/05/2021 Sovetskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz   Supreme Court of Severnaya Ossetia Republic 9   months and 4   days fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint       20425/21* 25/03/2021 Vitaliy Olegovich BOYCHENKO 1993     11/12/2019 to 19/03/2021 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan   Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 1   year and 3   months and 9   days 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. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport in a van between 26/12/2019 -05/10/2021 and on 08/10/2021 and 15/10/2021: transport from SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic to the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; applicant transported on numerous occasions; inadequate temperature; 0.2 sq. m per person; overcrowding; each transfer lasted 5 to 6 hours; no or restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air; passive smoking; constant video surveillance in a van; lack of or insufficient natural light; lack of or insufficient electric light; lack of or insufficient quantity of food; inadequate temperature; 4 inmates in a compartment with a designed capacity for 2   persons; 3.5 hours’ trip.     26035/21 22/04/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich YERMOLENKO 1972 Maksim Andreyevich Nikonov Vladimir 16/07/2020 pending Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir   Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir   Vladimir Regional Court More than 1   year and 6   months and 12   days 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir, 22/12/2020 (appellate complaint reached the court on 25/12/2020) - Vladimir Regional Court, 18/01/2021 (24   days)   Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir, 22/03/2021 (appellate complaint reached the court on 26/03/2021) - Vladimir Regional Court, 19/04/2021 (24   days)     26067/21 20/04/2021 Linur Shamilevich MURTAZIN 1978     12/12/2017 to 17/03/2021 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan   Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 3   years and 3   months and 6   days fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of detention during transport in a van on multiple occasions since 17/01/2018, 0.33   sq.m. of personal space, overcrowding, applicant transported on numerous occasions, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport     26784/21* 02/05/2021 Albert Aydarovich SABIROV 1990     21/04/2018 pending Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan   Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan   Fourth Appeal Court More than 3   years and 9   months and 7   days use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decisions by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic of 17/02/2021 and 30/04/2021 reviewed by the Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on, respectively, 12/03/2021 and 03/06/2021     38254/21* 12/07/2021 Ivan Viktorovich TIMOFEYEV 1981     21/04/2020 to 17/06/2021 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul of Altai Region   Altai Regional Court   Fifth Appeal Court 1   year and 1   month and 28   days 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       44148/21* 10/08/2021 Gennadiy Grigoryevich KIRILOV 1969     25/10/2017 pending Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan   Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic   Fourth Appellate Court More than 4   years and 3   months and 3   days 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits   Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusal of short-term family visits in SIZO-2 Republic of Tatarstan, wife, daughter