Communicated on 18 September 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 42296/09
Yuriy Vladimirovich KOVROV against Russia
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants, who are all Russian nationals, is set out in the appendix.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Kovrov v. Russia, application no. 42296/09
On 26 January 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of inflicting bodily harm and murder.
On 27 January 2012 the Egoryevsk Town Court of the Moscow Region remanded the applicant in custody on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime, (2) had a difficult character and was addicted to alcohol, (3) was registered with the Juveniles Commission (Комиссия по делам несовершеннолетних), (4) might put pressure on witnesses, and (5) might interfere with investigation.
On 26 March, 10 April, 8 June, 10 August, 10 September and 10 December 2012, and 24 June 2013 the Egoryevsk Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention, referring to the same grounds. The court also held that the applicant had no permanent place of residence, could abscond or reoffend. The applicant lodged appeals against the detention orders but the Moscow Regional Court dismissed them.
On 23 September 2013 the Egoryevsk Town Court held that the applicant was accused of a serious crime and therefore his liberty should be restricted. However the court noted that he had already been detained for a long time, that he had committed the crime when he had been a minor, and that his mother intended to provide him with accommodation, and thus placed him under house arrest.
On 20 November 2013 the Egoryevsk Town Court extended the applicant’s house arrest.
On 24 December 2013 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 20 November 2013.
On 12 December 2013 the Egoryevsk Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.
2. Ulyanitskiy v. Russia, application no. 71805/11
On 29 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud.
On 30 October 2008 he was released under an undertaking not to leave the town.
On 13 April 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow changed the preventive measure in respect of the applicant to house arrest. The court held that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime, could put pressure on witnesses and the victim, could destroy evidence and interfere with the investigation. The house-arrest order read as follows:
“... to prohibit [the applicant] from:
- leaving his permanent place of residence at the address ... without an investigator’s written consent;
- sending and receiving correspondence, including letters, telegrams, parcels and emails;
- giving talks and speeches, making statements and comments on this criminal case through mass media;
- communicating with others without an investigator’s written consent using any communication tools, including radio, telephone, television or the Internet.”
On 20 and 30 December 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court extended the house arrest on the same grounds.
On 4 and 10 April 2012 the District Court extended the house arrest stating that the circumstances of the case had not changed; the investigation was not finished; the applicant was accused of several crimes; he had been put on the wanted list at the beginning of the investigation; he had not appeared at the police station several times and hence he could abscond; he had not studied all the case-file material; he could also put pressure on witnesses and interfere with the investigation.
The Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the house-arrest orders.
On 8 June 2012 the investigator changed the preventive measure from house arrest to an undertaking not to leave the town.
3. Botnaryuk v. Russia, application no. 75089/13
On 24 December 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of falsification of evidence and perjury.
On 28 December 2012 the Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic placed the applicant under house arrest.
On 19 February and 30 April 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court extended the house arrest on the grounds that the applicant was accused of several crimes, could put pressure on witnesses and his co-accused, could interfere with the investigation, and that the circumstances of the case had not changed.
On 24 June 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court extended the house arrest, stating that the applicant was accused of serious crimes and that the circumstances of the case had not changed. The court imposed on the applicant the following prohibitions:
“- leaving his permanent place of residence at the address ..., unless there is an emergency, a need to see a doctor or to appear on summons;
- communicating using any communication tools or the Internet;
- communicating with witnesses and the co-accused involved in the criminal proceedings against [the applicant], except for the persons living with him.”
On 17 July and 20 August 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court extended the house arrest without giving any reasons.
The applicant’s appeals against the house-arrest orders were dismissed.
In December 2013 the applicant applied to have some of the house arrest restrictions altered to allow him to attend church every Sunday, go for a three-hour walk every day and talk on the telephone with his lawyers.
On 25 December 2013 the Vorkuta Town Court dismissed his application on the grounds that the circumstances of the case had not changed.
Following an appeal by the applicant, on 31 January 2014 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld this decision.
On 10 February 2014 the Vorkuta Town Court convicted the applicant of falsification of evidence, misrepresentation and illegal possession of arms and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment and suspension from the legal profession for three years.
4. Lepeshkina v. Russia, application no. 50956/15; Shirokozhukhov v. Russia, application no. 50995/15; Pogrebov v. Russia, application no. 50999/15; Korotkova v. Russia, application no. 51016/15
On 20 August 2014 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of banditry and vandalism.
On 21 August 2014 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow ordered their placement under house arrest on the grounds that they were accused of serious crimes and could abscond, and established the following prohibitions:
“- leaving [the applicants’] permanent places of residence at the addresses ..., without an investigator’s written consent, except for a medical emergency;
- communicating with anybody except for their next of kin, lawyers, the investigator working on the case, the supervising body or a court;
- communicating using communication tools except for emergency calls in a case of medical necessity or accident, police calls, calls to the supervising authority or the investigator working on the case;
- using the Internet;
- sending and receiving correspondence.”
On 14 October 2014 the District Court issued a collective house-arrest order, stating that the applicants were accused of serious crimes committed by a group of criminals, could abscond, could interfere with the investigation, and that some of their accomplices had not been arrested yet. The court also took into account the applicants’ characters without specifying any details. The court also clarified the house-arrest restrictions and allowed a daily walk from 11 a.m. to 12 noon.
On 12 November 2014 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals against the above house-arrest order. However the court amended the house-arrest order in respect of Mr Pogrebov allowing him to send and receive correspondence to and from the investigator, the supervising body and the court.
On 17 and 18 November 2014, and 19 January, 16 March and 15 May 2015 the District Court extended the applicants’ house arrest reproducing the contents of the previous orders verbatim.
(a) Review of Ms Lepeshkina’s house-arrest orders
On 19 March and 18 May 2015 the applicant lodged appeals against the house-arrest orders of 16 March and 15 May 2015.
On 20 April and 25 June 2015 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
(b) Review of Mr Shirokozhukhov’s house-arrest orders
On 19 March the applicant lodged an appeal against the house-arrest order of 16 March 2015. On an unspecified date he also appealed against the house-arrest order of 15 May 2015.
On 20 April and 23 June 2015 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
(c) Review of Mr Pogrebov’s house-arrest orders
On 19 March and 18 May 2015 the applicant lodged appeals against the house-arrest orders of 16 March and 15 May 2015.
On 20 April and 23 June 2015 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
(d) Review of Mr Korotkova’s house-arrest orders
On 19 March and 19 May 2015 the applicant lodged appeals against the house-arrest orders of 16 March and 15 May 2015.
On 20 April and 29 June 2015 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
5. Isaichev v. Russia, application no. 1327/16
On 2 April 2015 the applicant was accused of bribery.
On 3 April 2015 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow placed him under house arrest on the grounds that the applicant was accused of a serious crime, could threaten witnesses (his subordinates), and could abscond, destroy evidence or in any other way interfere with the investigation. The court also referred to the applicant’s character without specifying any details and imposed on the applicant the following restrictions:
“... to prohibit [the applicant] from:
- leaving his permanent place of residence at the address ... without the investigator’s consent;
- communicating using communication tools except for emergency calls in a case of medical necessity or an accident;
- communicating with the parties to this criminal case;
- sending and receiving correspondence without the investigator’s consent.”
On 20 May 2015 the Presnenskiy District Court issued a collective house-arrest order in respect of the applicant and his accomplices referring to the seriousness of the offence, the flight risk and that they could interfere with the investigation.
On 23 September and 25 November 2015 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s house arrest referring to the same grounds. The court also noted that the investigation was still pending; that there was a need to collect evidence; that the case was complex and some further investigative actions were required; and the court stated that the applicant should study the case file.
The Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the house-arrest orders.
6. Nikolenko v. Russia, application no. 14206/16
On 8 August 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of corruption.
On 9 August 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok changed the preventive measure in respect of the applicant to house arrest.
On 6 August and 7 November 2014 the Mikhaylovskiy District Court of Vladivostok extended the house arrest stating that the applicant was accused of a serious crime, could abscond, could threaten witnesses using his friends working in the police, and could interfere with the investigation. The court prohibited the applicant form:
“1. Leaving [his] permanent place of residence at the address ..., except for:
- the need to undergo medical examinations and treatment in Primorskiy Region medical facilities, having given prior notification of the head office of the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences in Primorskiy Region, or to be hospitalised;
- going for a walk, pharmacy visits, shopping near [his place of residence] from 12 noon to 2 p.m.
2. Communicating with anybody except for his lawyers and next of kin living with him without the supervising authority’s permission.
3. Sending and receiving correspondence, except for the correspondence necessary for exercising the accused’s rights in the criminal case.
4. Communicating using any tools, except for communication with his lawyers and next of kin living with him at the address: ....”
On 25 December 2014 the Primorskiy Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the house-arrest order of 7 November 2014.
Further developments remain unknown. Criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.
7. Mukhin v. Russia, application no. 24655/16
On 29 July 2015 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of inciting hatred and enmity, and degrading treatment. On the same date the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow remanded him in custody on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime, might abscond as he had a passport, and he might threaten witnesses, falsify evidence or in any other way interfere with the investigation.
On 19 August 2015 the Moscow City Court reviewed the detention order of 29 July 2015 and placed the applicant under house arrest as follows:
“... to change the preventive measure in respect of [the applicant] to house arrest at the address ...
[... the applicant] shall be prohibited from:
- leaving his place of residence at the address ... without the written consent of the investigator or the supervising authority, unless there is a need to buy food or toiletries, or to visit a hospital for medical treatment, subject to the consent of the officers working on his criminal case and the supervising authority;
- changing the above place of residence without the investigator’s consent;
- communicating with persons involved in the criminal proceedings against him as witnesses, co-accused or suspects (if any), except for a lawyer who may visit [the applicant] at his place of residence, and his next of kin as prescribed by law;
- discussing the circumstances of the criminal case using mobile devices, including mobile and landline telephones, email, the Internet, except for using the telephone to call the police, the supervising authority or the investigator, or in a case of medical emergency or an accident; [the applicant] shall inform the supervising body of such calls;
- sending and receiving parcels, packages, letters and telegrams.”
On 18 September 2015 the District Court extended the house arrest until 22 October 2015, stating that, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the crime and the applicant’s character, there were reasons to believe that the applicant might abscond or in any other way interfere with the investigation, put pressure on witnesses or destroy evidence. The court amended the restrictions imposed by the house-arrest order of 19 August 2015. It held that the applicant could go for an hour-long walk every day around his place of residence and leave his place of residence for one hour three times a week to buy food and toiletries, subject to the approval of the supervising authority. The court further reiterated the prohibition of communication but held that the applicant could communicate with his lawyer and his next of kin. It also prohibited the applicant from sending and receiving correspondence and emails unless it was necessary for participation in judicial proceedings or for medical treatment. The court complemented the prohibition on using electronic devices with a restriction on using radio and television.
On 14 October 2015 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the house-arrest order of 18 September 2015.
On 21 October 2015 the District Court of Moscow extended the house arrest until 22 January 2016 on the same grounds as described above.
On 16 November 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 21 October 2015 on appeal.
On 26 January 2016 the District Court of Moscow extended the house arrest until 22 March 2016, stating that the applicant might reoffend and that there was enough evidence indicating his involvement in the crime. The court further reiterated the grounds indicated in the previous house-arrest orders.
8. Trishina v. Russia, application no. 46130/16
(a) House arrest
On 8 February 2016 the applicant, an executive at a Moscow airport, was arrested on suspicion of negligence resulting in the death of several persons. On the same day the Basmanyy District Court of Moscow remanded her in custody on the grounds that she was suspected of a serious crime, was a flight risk, and that she might destroy evidence, threaten witnesses or otherwise interfere with the investigation.
The applicant lodged an appeal. She stated that there was no evidence confirming her intention to interfere with the investigation.
On 24 February 2016 the Moscow City Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and changed the preventive measure from pre-trial detention to house arrest, stating that it was possible to apply a less restrictive measure. At the same time, the court held that there was no reason to release the applicant on bail as the investigator had provided evidence indicating her involvement in the crime. The court prohibited the applicant from:
“ - leaving her place of residence at the address ... without the investigator’s or the supervising body’s written consent, except for daily two-hour walks around her place of residence, shopping at the nearest shops, visiting hospitals in cases of medical emergency, if there is a need, subject to the permission of the officers working on the case and the supervising authority;
- changing her place of residence without the investigator’s permission;
- communicating with persons involved in the criminal proceedings against her as witnesses, co-accused or suspects (if any), except for a lawyer who may visit [the applicant] at her place of residence, and her next of kin as prescribed by law;
- discussing the circumstances of the criminal case using mobile devices, including mobile and landline telephones, email, the Internet, except for using a telephone to call the police, the supervising authority or the investigator, or in a case of medical emergency or an accident. [The applicant] shall inform the supervising authority of such calls;
- sending and receiving parcels, packages, letters and telegrams.”
On 6 July 2016 the applicant was released under an undertaking not to leave Moscow.
(b) Conditions of detention
From 10 to 24 February 2016 the applicant was detained in remand centre IZ-77/6 in Moscow. She was held in cell 113 (from 10 to 12 February 2016), cell 106 (from 12 to 15 February 2016) and cell 115 (from 15 to 24 February 2016).
The conditions of cell 113 were as follows: area of about 36 m2; the applicant was detained with thirteen other inmates; temperature of about +3˚C; the applicant had to sleep in her clothes; there was no shower room in the cell.
Cell 106 was designed to house forty-one people but the applicant was detained with forty-five inmates.
In cell 115 the applicant was detained with three inmates, one of whom had been infected with HIV; there were gaps between the windows and the walls, the temperature was between -1˚C and -3˚C; the applicant had to sleep in her clothes; the bed linen was of poor quality; there was no shower room in the cell. The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week for no longer than fifteen minutes.
9. Tskhomelidze v. Russia, application no. 8889/17
On 9 August 2016 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of abuse of power.
On 10 August 2016 Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd remanded the applicant in custody on the grounds that there was enough evidence suggesting the applicant’s involvement in a serious crime and that, if at large, she might reoffend, abscond, destroy evidence or in any other way interfere with the investigation. It also referred to the applicant’s character, state of health and family status without specifying the details.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order of 10 August 2016, stating that the investigator had failed to indicate adequate reasons for remanding her in custody.
On 6 September 2016 the Volgograd Regional Court dismissed her appeal but deleted the reference to the risk of reoffending in its reasoning.
On 6 October 2016 the District Court the court changed the preventive measure to house arrest. It held that the investigator had failed to show that the applicant’s detention had been justified and that she could abscond and might put pressure on witnesses. The court imposed on the applicant the following prohibitions:
“- leaving her place of residence at the address: ..., except for visiting the nearest hospitals, shops and pharmacies, appearing before the police, the courts or a prosecutor’s office;
- communicating with persons engaged in criminal proceedings;
- sending and receiving correspondence;
- using communication devices or the Internet, except for calling an ambulance, police or rescue service in a case of accident, or calling the supervising authority or investigator. [The applicant] shall inform the supervising body of every such call.”
On 21 October 2016 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the house‑arrest order of 6 October 2016, but extended the house arrest on the grounds that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime. The court also referred to her character.
On 2 November 2016 the District Court held that there was no reason to believe that the applicant had tried to abscond or put pressure on persons involved in criminal proceedings; it extended the house arrest and imposed the same restrictions as in the house-arrest order of 6 October 2016.
On 21 November 2016 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the house-arrest order of 2 November 2016 and ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention, referring to the seriousness of the crime, her character, and the possibility of her absconding or interfering with the investigation.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. House arrest
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure
Pursuant to Articles 97 and 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”), which contains general provisions on preventive measures, when deciding on a preventive measure the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “sufficient grounds to believe” that the accused would abscond, reoffend, threaten witnesses or other parties to the proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice (Article 97). It must also take into account the seriousness of the charges, information on the accused’s character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99).
Article 107 § 1 of the CCrP provides that house arrest can be ordered by a court if it is impossible to impose a less restrictive preventive measure and implies detention of a suspect or an accused at his or her place of residence, subject to some restrictions and prohibitions and supervision by a competent body.
House arrest can last for up to two months. If it is impossible to complete the investigation within two months and there were no grounds for changing or cancelling the preventive measure, the court may extend house arrest subject to the CCrP’s provisions on pre-trial detention and Article 107 of CCrP (Article 107 § 2).
Under Article 107 §§ 7 and 8, when ordering house arrest, the court may impose on a suspect or an accused the following prohibitions and/or restrictions: (1) leaving his or her place of residence, (2) communicating with certain persons, (3) receiving and sending correspondence, and (4) using communication devices or the Internet. Depending on the seriousness of the charges and circumstances of the case, the court may impose all these prohibitions and restrictions or only some of them. The court may change the restrictions imposed at the request of a suspect or an accused, his or her counsel, legal representative or the investigator. The suspect’s or accused’s right to call an ambulance, the police or the rescue service in a case of accident, as well as the supervising body or the investigator, cannot be restricted. He or she must inform the supervising body of every such call.
Article 107 § 9 provides that a house-arrest order must stipulate how to apply this preventive measure (place of residence, term, when a suspect or an accused may leave his or her place of residence, restrictions and prohibitions, places he or she may visit).
A suspect or an accused placed under house arrest is under the charge of a supervising authority. If he or she violates the restrictions or prohibitions imposed by the court, the house arrest may be changed to a more restrictive preventive measure (Article 107 §§ 10 and 14).
(b) Domestic courts’ case-law
In Ruling no. 41 of 19 December 2013 on the Practice of Application by the Courts of Preventive Measures in the Form of Remand in Custody, Bail and House Arrest, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held that when determining restrictions and prohibitions applied to a suspect or an accused, the court shall take into account the suspect’s or the accused’s character. The court cannot impose restrictions and prohibitions which are not prescribed by Article 107 § 7 (§ 39 of the Ruling).
In its Ruling no. 27-П of 6 December 2011, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reiterated the Court’s case-law to the effect that the difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (§ 2 of the Ruling). Having analysed the relevant provisions of the CCrP governing house arrest and detention, taken together, as well as the nature of the restrictions applied to an individual in the case of house arrest, the Constitutional Court found, in particular, that house arrest, like pre-trial detention, implied the compulsory isolation of an accused or a suspect from society, in a limited space, and preventing the person from working, moving freely and communicating with other persons. Thus, in view of the restrictions suffered, house arrest involved a direct restriction of a person’s right to physical liberty and security. Therefore, the procedural guarantees in the case of house arrest should be the same as those applicable to pre-trial detention (§ 3 of the Ruling).
2. Pre-trial detention and review of pre-trial detention
For relevant provisions on pre-trial detention and review of pre-trial detention see Zherebin v. Russia (Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 16‑25, 24 March 2016) and Pyatkov v. Russia (Pyatkov v. Russia, no. 61767/08, §§ 48-68, 13 November 2012).
COMPLAINTS
Common complaints
The applicants complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of lengthy and unjustified pre-trial detention and house arrest.
Individual complaints
The applicant in the case of Trishina v. Russia (no. 46130/16) complains under Article 3 of the Convention, of conditions of detention in a remand centre.
In the Lepeshkina v. Russia (no. 50956/15), Shirokozhukhov v. Russia (no. 50995/15), Pogrebov v. Russia (no. 50999/15) and Korotkova v. Russia (no. 51016/15) cases the applicants complain, under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, of the belated review of the house-arrest orders of 16 March and 15 May 2015. In the case of Mukhin v. Russia (no. 24655/16) the applicant complains, under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, of the belated review of the house-arrest orders of 18 September and 21 October 2015.
The applicant in the case of Kovrov v. Russia (no. 42296/09) complains, under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, that he could not access compensation for his unjustified pre-trial detention and house arrest.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Questions in respect of all applicants
1. Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention and house arrest in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the reasons expressly relied on by the domestic courts in the detention and house-arrest orders, were the applicants’ pre-trial detention and house arrest justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicants, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
4. The parties are invited to provide missing house-arrest orders, in particular, the house-arrest order of 20 November 2013 and the appellate court’s decision of 24 December 2013 (Kovrov v. Russia, no. 42296/09); and the house arrest orders of 28 December 2012, and 19 February and 30 April 2013 (Botnaryuk v. Russia, no. 75089/13).
Where the applicant’s detention or house arrest was extended after the date of the applicant’s last letter to the Court, the parties are invited to indicate the overall length of the detention and house arrest and the reasons for the extension and submit the relevant detention and house-arrest orders.
Individual questions
Kovrov v. Russia, application no. 42296/09
Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
Lepeshkina v. Russia, application no. 50956/15; Shirokozhukhov v. Russia, application no. 50995/15; Pogrebov v. Russia, application no. 50999/15; Korotkova v. Russia, application no. 51016/15; Mukhin v. Russia, application no. 24655/16
Did the length of the proceedings by which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their house arrest comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Trishina v. Russia, application no. 46130/16
Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention in remand centre IZ-77/6?
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
42296/09
04/07/2009
Yuriy Vladimirovich KOVROV
09/07/1995
Yegoryevsk
Sergey Aleksandrovich
KNYAZKIN
71805/11
07/11/2011
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich ULYANITSKIY
21/10/1970
Moscow
Marina Lazarevna MIKHAYLOVA
75089/13
05/11/2013
Mikhail Dmitriyevich BOTNARYUK
05/10/1971
Vorkuta
50956/15
09/10/2015
Anna Vladimirovna LEPESHKINA
24/08/1989
Moscow
Sergey Aleksandrovich NASONOV
50995/15
09/10/2015
Aleksey Vladimirovich SHIROKOZHUKHOV
04/11/1988
Moscow
Oleg Sergeyevich SIDORIN
50999/15
09/10/2015
Aleksandr Yuryevich POGREBOV
05/09/1981
Krasnogorsk
Olga Sergeyevna LUKMANOVA
51016/15
09/10/2015
Yevgeniya Vasilyevna KOROTKOVA
20/04/1988
Moscow
Valeriy Vladimirovich LAVROV
1327/16
24/12/2015
Yuriy Aleksandrovich ISAICHEV
09/01/1961
Moscow
Nikolay Fedorovich FILATOV
14206/16
25/02/2016
Oleg Ivanovich NIKOLENKO
18/03/1959
Mikhaylovka
Artem Vasilyevich SEMAL
24655/16
24/02/2016
Yuriy Ignatyevich MUKHIN
22/03/1949
Moscou
Mjriana VISENTIN
46130/16
02/08/2016
Svetlana Aleksandrovna TRISHINA
11/12/1978
Moscow
Francis JACOBS
8889/17
29/12/2016
Diana Tamaziyevna TSKHOMELIDZE
09/06/1988
Volgograd
Denis Viktorovich KOLESNIKOV
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy