FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SHAYDULLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2282/21 and 24 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shaydullin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 May 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 excessive length of their pre-trial 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 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
8. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
9. In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Khodokovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, paras. 230-233, 31 May 2011, regarding impossibility to have a private consultation with counsel via a video-link during a court hearing; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018 and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12,18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits in detention facilities and lack of effective remedies; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Kalinichenko v. Russia, no. 40834/11, §§ 75-78, 9 July 2019, concerning unlawful pre-trial detention.
13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms under Article 13 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
2282/21
04/12/2020
Rinat Kurbangaliyevich SHAYDULLIN
1975
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
21/06/2018 to
14/08/2020
Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 25 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention
2,200
14287/21
18/02/2021
Sergey Fedorovich RUBEZHNOY
1974
Koshev Vladimir Vladimirovich
Stavropol
26/06/2018
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court,
Third Appellate Court
4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 22 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms -Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol; between 14/08/2020 and 27/10/2020; Stavropol Regional Court, 22/01/2021,
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Stavropol, 16/06/2018 – pending 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. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of video surveillance
9,750
30020/21
11/06/2021
Magomed Gadzhiyevich MAGOMEDOV
1967
Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich
Moscow
30/03/2018
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow,
Moscow City Court,
First Appeal Court
4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18 day(s)
collective detention orders;
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 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, of 29/04/2021, appeal lodged on 04/05/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 16/07/2021
5,100
31358/21
16/05/2021
Aleksandr Alekseyevich SAMOYLOV
1960
Suslova Irina Aleksandrovna
Vyborg
02/04/2018 to
13/03/2019
15/07/2019 to
30/03/2021
Leningrad Regional Court,
Priozyorsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region
11 month(s) and 12 day(s)
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 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
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the hearings in the Priozerskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region since 04/04/2018 - 30/03/2021
9,750
37778/21
14/07/2021
(4 applicants)
Pavel Aleksandrovich CHEPURKIN
1979
Aleksey Leonidovich DOROSHENKO
1984
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KAGANOVSKIY
1981
Andrey Valerianovich SHISHKOV
1985
Motchenko Lina Fedorovna
Nevinnomyssk
15/05/2014 to
20/01/2021
19/05/2014 to
20/01/2021
08/12/2014 to
20/01/2021
05/02/2015 to
20/01/2021
Nevinnomyssk Town Court of Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court
6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s)
6 year(s), 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)
6 year(s), 1 month(s) and 14 day(s)
5 year(s), 11 month(s) and 16 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
collective detention orders;
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
5,000, to each of the applicants
55567/21
30/10/2021
Maksim Viktorovich TARKHANOV
1978
17/02/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
1 year(s) and 7 month(s)
collective detention orders;
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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Moscow City Court, 07/06/2021; the applicant’s placement in a metal cage and glass cabin during the hearings before the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow and the Moscow City Court on multiple occasions in the period from 18/02/2021 to 13/07/2022,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, on 16/04/2021, appeal decision of the Moscow City Court on 07/06/2021;
Detention order of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, on 15/07/2021, appeal lodged on 18/07/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 01/09/2021,
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention,
Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - lack of family visits in a temporary detention facility (SIZO) where the applicant has been detained since February 2021,
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits
9,750
2999/22
15/12/2021
Ruslan Mikhaylovich ARASHUKOV
1986
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
30/01/2019
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court,
Cherkessk Town Court of Karachay-Cherkessia Republic;
Supreme Court of Karachay-Cherkessia Republic, Peobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 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
3,800
3482/22
15/12/2021
Viktor Valeryevich BELEVTSOV
1978
Nyamina Olga Valentovna
Moskva
29/09/2018
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court
3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 13/10/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 24/11/2021
4,500
3618/22
13/12/2021
Roman Aleksandrovich MALKOV
1979
Antonova Yekaterina Vladimirovna
Leningrad
22/01/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Pushkinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 26 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Pushkinskiy District Court on 17/05/2021, appeal lodged on 26/05/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 27/07/2021;
Detention order by the Pushkinskiy District Court on 28/07/2021, appeal lodged on 02/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 12/10/2021;
Detention order by the Kolpinskiy District Court on 11/08/2021, appeal lodged on 16/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 22/09/2021
3,300
3732/22
27/12/2021
Eduard Mullanurovich MUKHAMETZYANOV
1983
13/08/2018 to
27/08/2020
11/08/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
2 year(s) and 15 day(s)
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
3,200
4015/22
16/12/2021
Sergey Aleksandrovich OVECHKIN
1980
12/12/2019
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 5 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 07/02/2020 - 05/10/2021,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 05/10/2021, appeal lodged on 08/10/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 11/11/2021;
Detention order by the Sverdlovskiy District Court on 29/12/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 01/02/2022
9,750
4040/22
27/12/2021
Ivan Sergeyevich SAMOKHVALOV
1987
Dorzhizhapova Irina Vladimirovna
Chita
19/07/2019
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalye Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)
collective detention orders;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial
3,200
4076/22
29/12/2021
Maksim Vitalyevich TISHCHENKO
1993
22/09/2018
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan,
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,
Fourth Appellate Court
3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26 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
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 28/06/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on; 21/07/2021
Detention order by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 02/09/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 22/09/2021
4,500
4131/22
27/12/2021
Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich YEVSIKOV
1990
24/04/2018
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,
Fourth Appellate Court
4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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
4,500
4787/22
29/12/2021
Vyacheslav Olegovich VYSOTSKIY
1998
Logvinov Yuriy Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don
20/11/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 28 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, on 10/11/2021, appeal lodged on 13/11/2021, appeal decision by the Rostov Regional Court on 09/12/2021
2,500
4921/22
15/12/2021
Grigoriy Nikolayevich VARYGIN
1995
Gurenko Vitaliy Sergeyevich
Krasnoyarsk
30/01/2019
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Pirovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Lesosibirskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoayrsk Regional Court
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the hearings extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the Pirovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, the Lesosibirskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, from 04/03/2019 and possibly ongoing as of 16/09/2022
9,750
5680/22
24/12/2021
Tatyana Alekseyevna ZORINA
1984
20/07/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s)
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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
2,200
5768/22
01/12/2021
Yuriy Yuryevich KONOPLEV
1973
08/08/2019 to
13/08/2021
Kozulskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
2 year(s) and 6 day(s)
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
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms during the court hearings in Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 06/11/2019 - 09/06/2021
9,750
5990/22
10/01/2022
Ruslan Nikolayevich MALAYDAKH
1992
22/10/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
2,100
6099/22
08/01/2022
Dmitriy Vladimirovich NOVIKOV
1972
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
07/06/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Leninskiy District Court of Novorossiysk, Stavropol Regional Court
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 10 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placed into a metal cage during the court hearing on 23/08/2021
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of Novorossiysk, on 07/06/2021, appeal lodged on 10/06/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 23/08/2021
9,750
6881/22
19/01/2022
Dmitriy Vladimirovich CHERTOK
1972
Nechiporenko Natalya Aleksandrovna
Moscow
08/07/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow,
Moscow City Court, Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow,
the First Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 9 day(s)
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - from the moment the applicant was extradited to Russia from Hungary on 08/07/2021 and until 15/10/2021 when the Moscow City Court adopted its decision on pre-trial detention, he was in pre-trial detention without proper order (see Kalinichenko v. Russia, no. 40834/11, paras. 75-78, 9 July 2019),
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention:
Detention order by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow on 06/09/2021, appeal lodged on 08/09/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 07/10/2021;
Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 15/10/2021, appeal lodged on 18/10/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 18/11/2021;
Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 17/11/2021, appeal lodged on 18/11/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 14/12/2021
3,900
7422/22
22/01/2022
Aleksandr Pavlovich KUZIN
1982
05/08/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha Republic,
Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 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 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
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during court hearings in Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha Republic 02/10/2020-22/12/2021;
Video link from SIZO‑1 Sakha Republic 23/10/2020 - 22/10/2021,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 07/08/2020-17/01/2022 transport by van, detention in a transit cell, 0.2 sq. m per person, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking,
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - Impossibility to have a private consultation with counsel via a video-link during the appellate hearing at the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic on 22/10/2021 (see Khodokovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011)
9,750
8450/22
23/01/2022
Dmitriy Viktorovich KULAGA
1978
02/04/2014 to
24/12/2020
22/06/2021
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Divnogorskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 26 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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
5,000
8961/22
28/12/2021
Eldar Valeryevich GARIPOV
1995
Skachko Igor Yuryevich
St Petersburg
11/02/2021 to
18/02/2022
Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
1 year(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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court on 02/06/2021, appeal lodged on 07/06/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 01/07/2021;
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 30/08/2021, appeal lodged on 02/09/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 21/10/2021;
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 28/06/2021, appeal lodged on 29/06/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 22/07/2021;
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 30/07/2021, appeal lodged on 02/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 19/08/2021;
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 10/08/2021, appeal lodged on 17/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 16/09/2021;
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 30/08/2021, appeal lodged on 02/09/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 21/10/2021;
Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 10/11/2021, appeal lodged on 15/11/2021, appeal
proceedings were pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
1,400
10983/22
02/02/2022
Danis Rustemovich AKHMADEYEV
1992
23/06/2020
-
Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and
possibly as of 16/09/2022
Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan,
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,
Fourth Appellate Court
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 25 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
2,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.