SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 36904/19 and 37 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Butyanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4).
9. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the appeal proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 146-55, 30 July 2009, regarding lack of, or inadequate, compensation in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and review of detention; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, as regards conditions of detention and lack of effective remedy; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre‑trial detention; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 126, 4 October 2016, concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage or in a glass cabin in courtrooms; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018, and Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in prison; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76‑79, 26 June 2018, as regards unlawful detention; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this connection; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, as to the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 101-12, 4 July 2013, concerning ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Having regard to the above findings in paragraphs 11 and 12, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention as regards detention in a cage or a glass cabin (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).
14. The applicant in application no. 30057/22 also raised additional complaints. Having examined these complaints, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the complaints about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of detention in a cage or a glass cabin during a court hearing, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 30057/22 as inadmissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
No.
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
36904/19
04/07/2019
Aleksandr Nikolayevich BUTYANOV
1980
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/01/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/05/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 27/07/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/10/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 26/02/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 24/06/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 08/09/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 26/11/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov
v. Russia [GC],
no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Placement of the applicant in a metal cage during the hearing in the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 19/05/2021,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Nizhneingashskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court, since 23/10/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022, detention on charges of murder and weapon trafficking, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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,
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
9,750
41841/19
02/03/2020
and
59342/21
18/11/2021
Valeriy Igorevich NIKOLAYEV
1990
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2020
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/06/2020
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 23/12/2020
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 28/08/2020
Fifth Appellate Court, 30/09/2020
Fifth Appellate Court, 15/03/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 20/05/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-5tqrq8, 22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, since 18/02/2019 - pending as of 16/09/2022,
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusal of long-term family visits (Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, §§ 43 54, 9 June 2020), physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits (Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 51‑56, 13 February 2018),
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits
9,750
20809/21
17/03/2021
Dmitriy Vladimirovich GUKOV
1985
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 29/02/2020
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 05/02/2020
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 26/01/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/02/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; 29/12/2020-10/03/2021
8,000
23768/21
05/08/2021
Anton Indusovich GABITOV
1988
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 02/03/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 08/04/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
24513/21
27/12/2021
Vitaliy Sergeyevich MATERKIN
1991
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 22/09/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28/10/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
33095/21
09/06/2021
Maksim Anatolyevich DOLGODVOROV
1982
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 12/03/2021
Second Appellate Court, 19/04/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - between 19/08/2016 and 01/10/2021, transported on numerous occasions (more than 600 times), each of the trips took 45 minutes and more, overcrowding (there were at least 14 detainees in a van each time), some people smoke during transportation, the applicant was transported handcuffed, there were no safety belts or handles,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - The applicant is in pre-trial detention in SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region, since 19/08/2016 - pending as of 16/09/2022; overcrowding (< 2 sq. m. per person), passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of heating, absence of warm water, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - In pre-trial detention since 18/08/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022; Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, specific defects: 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,
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - in SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region, since 19/08/2016 and ongoing on
the date when the application was lodged
with the Court: opposite sex operators, video
surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance,
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusal of long-term family visits;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,
Art. 14 - in conjunction with art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits
16,300
36485/21
23/06/2021
Shamil Eduardovich NIGMATZYANOV
1991
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/04/2021
Fourth Appellate Court 03/06/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
40042/21
13/07/2021
Timur Narimanovich NUTSALOV
1994
Cheremushkinsky District Court of Moscow
14/04/2021
Moscow City Court, 27/05/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
44915/21
03/10/2021
Aleksandr Viktorovich GERASIMOV
1984
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021
Second Appellate Court, 12/08/2021
Second Appellate Court, 21/10/2021
Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
48431/21
27/08/2021
Natig Agalar Ogly ISKANDAROV
1977
Vakhitovskiy District Court, 04/05/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 28/05/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
48973/21
15/09/2021
Georgiy Nikolayevich ZHAVORONKOV
1956
Sivchenko Vadim Tikhonovich
Korolev
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow,
04/02/2021
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow,
31/03/2021
Moscow City Court, 23/03/2021
Moscow City Court,
10/06/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
49774/21
24/09/2021
Vadim Leonidovich LITVINOV
1968
Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna
Moscow
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 13/05/2021
Moscow City Court, 07/07/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
50115/21
29/09/2021
Yuriy Edisherovich SHONIYA
1982
Krasnoselskiy District Court of
St Petersburg, 30/04/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 07/06/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
51000/21
29/09/2021
Anatoliy Yuryevich GOLOVKO
1987
Lomonosov District Court of Arkhangelsk, 13/07/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 04/08/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Velskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, since 16/11/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, accused of kidnapping, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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
1,500
53763/21
22/10/2021
Sergey Alekseyevich VNUKOV
1974
Brigadin Vladimir Anatolyevich
Moscow
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 31/03/2021
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 01/07/2021
Moscow City Court, 24/05/2021
Moscow City Court, 16/08/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, since 04/02/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, accused of fraud, 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
2,300
59939/21
11/11/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZLUTSEV
1994
Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, 01/04/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/05/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; 07/03/2019-04/06/2021,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - between 05/03/2019 and 12/05/2020 (the first conviction, reversed on appeal on 10/09/2020 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court) and between 10/09/2020 and 04/06/2021; 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 failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention,
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - in respect of the violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention,
Art. 6 (1) in conjunction with Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair trial in view of the inability to have confidential exchanges with his legal counsel during the trial due to his placement in a metal cage, in particular, due to the permanent presence of escort officers near the metal cage and their inspection and reading of all the written communications passed by the applicant, confined in the metal cage, to his legal counsel (raised on appeal)
9,750
61034/21
26/11/2021
Aleksey Nikolayevich DUDOCHKIN
1991
Pavlova Natalya Valeryevna
Zelenogorsk
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 21/04/2021
Sovetskiy District Court, 13/05/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28/05/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention - lack of compensation remedy for excessive length of review of detention
500
917/22
22/12/2021
Anatoliy Petrovich BYKOV
1960
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 15/06/2021,
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 16/06/2021
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 18/08/2021,
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 06/10/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/07/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 29/07/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21/09/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 12/11/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - elections to the State Duma, 17-19/09/2021
500
1085/22
18/12/2021
Yuriy Pavlovich ARTOKHIN
1986
Golub Olga Viktorovna
Suzemka
Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, 17/05/2021
Moscow City Court, 22/06/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
1547/22
22/12/2021
Kirill Sergeyevich KONSTANTINOV
1988
Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich
Moscow
Dorogomilevskiy District Court of Moscow 22/05/2021
Moscow City Court 22/06/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested at 12.30 on 19/05/2021, recorded at 9 p.m. on 20/05/2021; raised in detention proceedings, decision of 22/06/2021 (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)
3,500
2112/22
23/11/2021
Sergey Nikolayevich SOBORNOV
1979
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 04/05/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/08/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 01/09/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 30/09/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 23/06/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 25/08/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 15/09/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 22/10/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court, detention period to be examined is after 21/07/2022 (the detention period before 21/07/2022 was already found by the Court to violate Art. 5-3 of the Convention), extortion, economic crime, 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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding
1,000
3558/22
01/12/2021
Rustem Vyacheslavovich FETISOV
1989
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 14/05/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 11/06/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court, since 24/03/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022, drug offence, 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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.
3,400
4511/22
21/12/2021
Maksim Pavlovich YEMELYANOV
1981
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, 07/06/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 23/07/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
5361/22
29/12/2021
Dmitriy Sergeyevich LAMANOV
1992
Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich
Moscow
Nadym Town Court, 18/09/2021
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, 09/11/2021
Yamalo-Neninskiy Regional Court, 14/10/2021
Moscow City Court, 14/12/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Nadym Town Court of the Yamalo-Nenetsk Region, Yamalo-Nenetsk Regional Court, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, pre-trial detention since 16/09/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, calls to unauthorized manifestation, 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
1,400
6211/22
27/12/2021
Vadim Vladimirovich SHVETS
1974
13/05/2021 Nevskiy District Court of
St Petersburg
21/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
7052/22
03/01/2022
Roman Aleksandrovich KARETNIKOV
1986
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021
Second Appellate Court, 14/10/2021
Second Appellate Court, 09/02/2022
Second Appellate Court, 28/07/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant’s placement in a glass cabin during the hearings in the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 16/09/2021; six persons per cabin measuring 3.6 sq. m.,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, since 25/01/2017 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged, 0.32 sq. m of personal space, the applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, inadequate temperature,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the applicant’s conditions of transport
9,750
8843/22
27/01/2022
Ilkin Elshanovich SALIMOV
1994
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 24/06/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 28/07/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
500
9341/22
22/01/2022
Farrukh Dilmurodovich TULAYEV
1989
Pliskin Pavel Markovich
St Petersburg
Nevskiy District Court of
St Petersburg, 30/06/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 22/07/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
9500/22
18/01/2022
Yevgeniy Olegovich PALAMARCHUK
1996
Zelenodolsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 07/07/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 17/09/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
11164/22
07/02/2022
Artur Aleksandrovich KUPREISHVILI
1989
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021
Second Appellate Court, 14/10/2021
Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
11172/22
03/02/2022
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich BOGDANOV
1980
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021
Second Appellate Court, 21/10/2021
Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court; since 09/11/2014, pending as of 16/09/2022; extorsion, murder, several crimes, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, collective detention orders
6,500
11781/22
14/02/2022
Mikhail Yuryevich DUDOCHKIN
1984
Timchenko Denis Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Zheleznogorskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 12/10/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 16/12/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
14873/22
21/02/2022
Andrey Nikolayevich KOLPAKOV
1976
Gurenko Vitaliy Sergeyevich
Krasnoyarsk
Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 24/11/2021
Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 19/12/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21/12/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 20/01/2022
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - use of metal cage in Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, since 24/11/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022
8,000
19613/22
08/03/2022
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DANILOV
1985
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021
Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
25042/22
28/04/2022
Timur Magomedrasulovich MAGOMEDOV
1984
Pliskin Pavel Markovich
St Petersburg
Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of
St Peterburg, 01/10/2021
Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of
St Petersburg, 13/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 28/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 03/12/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
500
27726/22
27/05/2022
Aleksey Olegovich ZADUMIN
1972
Kukharev Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Moscow
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow 04/02/2022
Moscow City Court on 09/03/2022
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearing in the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 27/04/2022,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, since 02/02/2022, pending as of 16/09/2022, economic crime; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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
9,750
30057/22
06/06/2022
Viktor Vyacheslavovich KRYSOV
2000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 02/02/2022
Fifth Appellate Court, 11/03/2022
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58,
22 May 2012)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.