Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> VASYANOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 56332/18 (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Fifth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 289 (04 April 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/289.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 289
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VASYANOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 56332/18 and 30 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vasyanovich and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
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 APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
- JURISDICTION
6. 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 CONVENTION
7. 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-LAW
12. 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; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect.
13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies relating to 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 CONVENTION
14. 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 the applicants' complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
- Declares the applications admissible;
- 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 that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms;
- 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 4 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
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] | |
14/11/2018 | Aleksey Igorevich VASYANOVICH 1987 |
| 22/08/2017 to 22/02/2019 | Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)
| 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 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van, from 27/05/2019 to 29/05/2019, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, overcrowding, lack of fresh air,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 04/05/2018, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 04/06/2018;
Moscow City Court, 16/08/2018, appeal decision by the Appeal Chamber of the Moscow City Court on 20/09/2018 | 2,200 | |
06/10/2020 | Denis Aleksandrovich SERDYUKOV 1982 |
| 03/08/2016 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Naberezhnyye Chelny City Court, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan | 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint | Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court between 26/12/2018 and 14/07/2020,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 05/08/2016 to 09/12/2018, 0.25 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, inadequate temperature; van, 09/12/2018 to 01/03/2021, 0.25 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport | 9,750 | |
15/03/2021 | Ilya Semenovich MARTYSHKIN 1967 |
| 14/08/2018 to 20/06/2022 | Samarskiy District Court, Avtozavodskiy District Court of Tolyatti, Samara Regional Court | 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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 - Samarskiy District Court, Avtozavodskiy District Court of Tolyatti, Samara Regional Court, 16/08/2018 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022 | 9,750 | |
25/02/2021 | Valentin Valentinovich GORSHKOV 1974 | Shumakova Irina Borisovna Moscow | 22/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 2 year(s) and 1 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint |
| 2,200 | |
19/05/2021 | Sumbat Amayakovich ABASOV 1966 | Bazhinov Mikhail Aleksandrovich Belgorod | 27/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod, Belgorod Regional Court | 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 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 |
| 2,300 | |
13/09/2021 | Vladimir Aleksandrovich MOISEYENKO 1988 |
| 04/05/2019 - 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 Region Court | 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 13 day(s)
| 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
| Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention: excessively lengthy review of detention:
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 17/03/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 06/04/2021 | 4,600 | |
01/08/2021 | Darya Olegovna GRINKOVA 1998 |
| 22/05/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court | 5 year(s) and 3 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders |
| 5,000 | |
01/12/2021 | Mikhail Vladimirovich MATVEYEV 1995 |
| 07/01/2017 to 04/06/2018
29/11/2018 to 22/03/2022 | Nizhneingashskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region,
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court | 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29 day(s)
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 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; collective detention orders
|
| 4,900 | |
08/07/2021 | Andrey Yevgenyevich ZARUBIN 1988 |
| 17/03/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Chita, Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalye Regional Court | 2 year(s) and 6 month(s)
| 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 |
| 2,600 | |
05/07/2021 | Anna Valeryevna KHMELEVA 1985 |
| 11/08/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Surgut Town Court, Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court, Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, | 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 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 |
| 3,200 | |
07/07/2021 | Dmitriy Yuryevich MAKSIMOV 1985 | Zyuzina Yevgeniya Mikhaylovna Voronezh | 10/09/2018 to 27/04/2021 | Ramonskiy District Court of Voronezh, Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court | 2 year(s) and 7 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint | Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Ramonskiy District Court of Voronezh, Leninskiy District court of Voronezh, between 14/09/2018 and 27/04/2021 | 9,750 | |
02/07/2021 | Eres Demir-oolovich BALDANAY 1980 |
| 27/02/2018 to 09/06/2021 | Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 14 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 | Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 19/01/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 16/02/2021;
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 13/04/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 20/05/2021 | 3,900 | |
12/07/2021 | Roman Igorevich ZAVARZIN 1982 |
| 05/05/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Zelenodolskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Pestrechinskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court | 3 year(s) and 4 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 | Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 15/12/2020, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 04/02/2021;
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 14/01/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 18/02/2021;
Pestrechinskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 10/02/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 24/03/2021
| 4,000 | |
21/06/2021 | Marat Aramaisovich MUSTAFIN 1987 |
| 27/06/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court | 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 25/03/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 21/04/2021 | 3,800 | |
27/07/2021 | Aleksandr Vladimirovich NAGORNYY 1975 | Stukova Viktoriya Nikolayevna Voronezh | 05/09/2016 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court | 6 year(s) and 12 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; failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention |
| 5,000 | |
26/07/2021 | Pavel Mikhaylovich YEFREMOV 1980 |
| 11/12/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan | 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 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 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 |
| 5,000 | |
21/07/2021 | Oleg Vyacheslavovich ZHDANOV 1971 | Pyatitskiy Yevgeniy Fedorovich Rostov-on-Don | 01/10/2020 - 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, Rostov Regional Court, Fourth Cassation Court | 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 16 day(s)
| fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint |
| 2,000 | |
02/08/2021 | Vitaliy Sergeyevich MUKHIN 1989 | Dunin Andrey Aleksandrovich Kozmodemyansk | 30/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)
| 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 |
| 1,500 | |
23/08/2021 | Konstantin Viktorovich MARCHENKO 1968 | Bochkarev Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Moscow | 26/03/2019 - 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, First Appellate Court | 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 22 day(s)
| 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention |
| 3,600 | |
07/08/2021 | Yevgeniy Valeryevich DANILIN 1986 |
| 02/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan | 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 15 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 | Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 26/01/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 19/02/2021;
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 30/03/2021, appeal decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 21/05/2021 | 2,500 | |
17/08/2021 | Maksim Aleksandrovich SERDYUCHENKO 1989 | Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog | 28/01/2019 to 08/11/2021 | Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court | 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 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 | Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, 24/05/2021, appeal decision by the Rostov Regional Court on 21/06/2021
| 3,500 | |
30/08/2021 | Sergey Yegorovich MARAKOV 1949 | Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol | 21/12/2020 to 11/10/2021 | Leninskiy District Court of Grozny, Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic | 9 month(s) and 21 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
|
| 1,000 | |
25/08/2021 | Vladimir Yevgenyevich PISARENKO 1978 | Androsova Nadezhda Sergeyevna Lipetsk | 15/10/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Basmannyy Disctrict Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk, Lipetsk Regional Court | 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)
| fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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 assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding |
| 4,000 | |
26/08/2021 | Mikhail Anatolyevich VASILYEV 1968 | Klyubin Sergey Nikolayevich Velikiy Novgorod | 27/11/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022
| Novgorod District Court of the Novgorod Region, Novgorod Regional Court | 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 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 | Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for a violation of Art. 5 (3) of the Convention | 3,000 | |
03/09/2021 | Magomet Abubakarovich AMKHADOV 1972 | Yalmambetov Dzhalil Saydagamatovich Stavropol | 28/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Taganskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court | 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 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; failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding |
| 2,100 | |
06/09/2021 | Timur Anatolyevich ISKHAKOV 1969 |
| 07/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022
| Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court | 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 10 day(s)
| 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention |
| 3,800 | |
01/12/2021 | Aleksey Vasilyevich SHEVCHUK 1974 |
| 27/08/2019 to 09/03/2022 | Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)
| failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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; collective detention orders | Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 09/03/2021, appeal lodged on 15/03/2021, Appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 09/06/2021;
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 20/05/2021, appeal lodged on 21/05/2021, Appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 07/09/2021;
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 08/09/2021, appeal lodged on 13/09/2021, Appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 19/10/2021 | 3,200 | |
07/09/2021 | Ruslan Rustemovich KHABEYEV 1997 |
| 21/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic | 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed |
| 2,200 | |
11/09/2021 | Nikita Yevgenyevich MALYSHEV 1997 |
| 20/04/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic | 5 year(s) and 4 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 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; collective detention orders |
| 5,000 | |
09/09/2021 | Georgiy Sergeyevich SHKURKO 1962 | Nechiporenko Natalya Aleksandrovna Moscow | 10/09/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Moscow Harrison Military Court, Appellate Military Court, Second Western Circuit Military Court | 3 year(s) and 7 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts
|
| 3,100 | |
16/09/2021 | Yanis Maksimovich BIRCHAK 1990 |
| 31/03/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 | Privolzhye Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan | 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 17 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; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding |
| 2,600 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.