Communicated on 10 May 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 37964/17
Roman Sergeyevich SHILOV against Russia
and 7 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 or under house arrest and pre-trial detention. They allege that the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest and pre-trial detention (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 or detention orders (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 legal certainty principle in detention proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Velichko v. Russia, no. 19664/07, §§ 61-75, 15 January 2013).
Complaints in case no. 816/18 also concern poor conditions of detention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012), detention in a cage during court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 84-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), unrecorded detention (see Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 47-54, 8 October 2015), authorities’ failure to bring the applicant promptly before the court (see Vakhitov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18232/11 and 2 others, §§ 39-54, 31 January 2017), delayed examination of her appeal against a house arrest order.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Questions in respect of all applicants
(a) Was the length of the applicants’ house arrest and pre-trial detention 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 and detention orders, were the applicants’ house arrest and detention 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 or detention 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 detention and the reasons for the extension and submit the relevant house-arrest and detention orders.
2. Individual questions
Averina v. Russia, no. 816/18
(a) Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention from 14 to 18 October 2017?
(b) Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of her confinement in metal cage in the courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev, nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017)?
(c) Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention ordered in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law on 14 October 2017?
(d) Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
(e) Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 18 October 2017 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Gimbatov v. Russia, no. 9659/18
Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 10 November 2017 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Gimbatov v. Russia, no. 28858/18
Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 23 March 2018 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Burdukovskiy v. Russia, no. 30304/18
Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 7 May 2018 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Grinev v. Russia, no. 30760/18
(a) Did the quashing by the court of cassation on 27 February 2017 of the appeal decision issued on 4 December 2017 by which the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been terminated and he had been placed under house arrest, violate the principle of legal certainty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention?
(b) Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge detention orders of 18 November 2017 and 26 April 2018 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
1
37964/17
27/04/2017
Roman Sergeyevich SHILOV
18/02/1981
Bryansk
Australian, Russian
Valeriy Vladimirovich SHUKHARDIN
2
58573/17
03/08/2017
Artemiy Yuryevich SHEVELEV
18/11/1984
Kemerovo
Russian
Roman Aleksandrovich MAKARENKO
3
816/18
18/12/2017
Olga Vladimirovna AVERINA
05/02/1964
Moscow
Russian
Aleksandr Vladimirovich KUKHAREV
4
9659/18
13/02/2018
Kazbek Khizriyevich GIMBATOV
05/05/1971
Moscow
Russian
Dmitriy Vladimirovich PANFILOV
5
11098/18
15/02/2018
Roman Aleksandrovich TAKTASHOV
29/09/1980
Pyatigorsk
Russian
6
28858/18
13/06/2018
Kazbek Khizriyevich GIMBATOV
05/05/1971
Moscow
Russian
Dmitriy Vladimirovich PANFILOV
7
30304/18
19/06/2018
Roman Pavlovich BURDUKOVSKIY
17/11/1984
Ulan - Ude
Russian
8
30760/18
22/06/2018
Andrey Vladimirovich GRINEV
11/08/1967
Moscow
Russian
Aleksey Viktorovich PARSHIN
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy