CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2024

.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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s75A32C27 { 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 } Published on 28 October 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   24644/24 Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 3 October 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia. In the application marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the application 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 table, 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 application concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention relating to deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 219-48, 31 May 2011 and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies 24644/24* 07/05/2021 Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV 1969   Vanessa Kogan Moscow Kislovodsk Town Court, 27/01/2021, appeal lodged on 01/02/2021 (proceedings regarding the applicant’s request for release) Stavropol Regional Court, 19/02/2021, the appellate court refused to consider the appeal stating that the applicant should challenge detention orders, he did not have to lodge any separate claims for release lack of review of detention (see Manerov v. Russia , no. 49848/10, §§   34-38, 5   January 2016)