Communicated on 23 October 2020
Published on 9 November 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 45087/19
Jevgeni PODOLINSKI against Estonia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the length of pre-trial detention. The first and second applicants are the accused in the same criminal case. They were both
taken in custody on 6 April 2015 and a court order for their detention was issued on 8 April 2015. The third applicant (who is accused in a different criminal case) was taken in custody 6 October 2015 and a court order for his detention was issued on 8 October 2015. All three applicants are charged of membership in organised criminal groups. Their detention was repeatedly extended during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and during the trial stage the courts repeatedly verified the continued need to detain the applicants. At the time of lodging their applications with the Court, all three applicants remained in detention. The third applicant subsequently informed the Court that on 13 March 2020 the Harju County Court convicted him. He appealed against the first-instance judgment and remains detained during the appellate proceedings.
The applicants complain that their excessively long pre-trial detention is in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, 2 May 2017; Chyła v. Poland, no. 8384/08, 3 November 2015; Trifković v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, 6 November 2012; Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006)? In particular, did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicants’ continued detention, did the competent authorities consider alternative preventive measures and display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicants, as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
Considering that the representative of the first and the second applicant referred to the impossibility of obtaining the requested documents, the Government are invited to submit all information and documents concerning the repeated extension of the first and second applicants’ pre-trial detention and the reviews of their detention.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1
45087/19
Podolinski v. Estonia
21/08/2019
Jevgeni PODOLINSKI
1971
Tallinn
Estonian
Andrei VESTERINEN
2
45248/19
Kaer v. Estonia
21/08/2019
Vitali KAER
1985
Tallinn
Estonian
Andrei VESTERINEN
3
12928/20
Abuladze v. Estonia
28/02/2020
Georgi ABULADZE
1988
Tallinn
Estonian
Marko TAMMANN
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy