Communicated on 22 May 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 44360/17
Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV against Russia
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern the applicants’ right to liberty and security of person. The applicants were arrested on suspicion of different crimes. The courts placed them under house arrest. They allege that the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 104-105, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). Some of the applicants also complain about delayed review of their appeals against house-arrest orders or the courts’ refusal to examine their appeals (see, mutatis mutandis, Butusov v. Russia, no. 7923/04, §§ 29‑35, 22 December 2009, Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 148-56, 23 October 2012) and violation of the right to compensation for unjustified house arrest (see, mutatis mutandis, Chuprikov v. Russia, no. 17504/07, § 99, 12 June 2014).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Questions in respect of all applicants
(a) Was the length of the applicants’ house arrest in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
(b) Having regard to the reasons expressly relied on by the domestic courts in the house-arrest orders, were the applicants’ house arrest justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
(c) Did the authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicants, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
(d) Where the applicants’ house arrest was extended after the date of the applicants’ last letter to the Court, the parties are invited to indicate the overall length of the house arrest and the reasons for the extension and submit the relevant house-arrest orders.
2. Individual questions
Basiyeva v. Russia, no. 57261/17
(a) Did the appeal court comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention when examining the applicant’s appeal against the house-arrest order of 26 December 2016?
(b) Did the appeal court examine the applicant’s appeal of 29 October 2016 against the court decision issued on 26 October 2016?
Geryugov v. Russia, no. 59102/17
(a) Did the appeal court comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention when examining the applicant’s appeal against the house-arrest order of 29 May 2017?
(b) Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for house arrest in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
Ryleyeva v. Russia, no. 59944/17
Did the appeal court examine the applicant’s appeal against the house‑arrest order issued on 30 November 2016?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
44360/17
14/06/2017
Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV
30/09/1965
Tula
Viktor Maksiyevich MAYEVSKIY
56930/17
10/07/2017
Yana Mikhaylovna KUZNETSOVA
12/09/1971
Izhevsk
Aleksey Anatolyevich VASILYEV
57261/17
31/07/2017
Fariza Kazbekovna BASIYEVA
06/09/1989
Vladikavkaz
59102/17
08/08/2017
Valeriy Aslanbekovich GERYUGOV
23/03/1963
Cherkessk
Mikhail Aleksandrovich OSHEROV
59944/17
06/08/2017
Aleksandra Andreyevna RYLEYEVA
25/05/1991
Moscow
80185/17
11/11/2017
Andrey Petrovich IVASHKIN
05/01/1978
Krasnoyarsk
81443/17
26/11/2017
Konstantin Arkadyevich TOMENCHUK
03/11/1973
Tula
Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy