Last Updated on February 1, 2024 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention.
European Court of Human Rights
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 36904/19 and 37 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Butyanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. 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.
II. 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).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4).
9. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 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 appeal proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. 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 Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 146-55, 30 July 2009, regarding lack of, or inadequate, compensation in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and review of detention; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, as regards conditions of detention and lack of effective remedy; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre‑trial detention; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 126, 4 October 2016, concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage or in a glass cabin in courtrooms; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018, and Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in prison; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76‑79, 26 June 2018, as regards unlawful detention; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this connection; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, as to the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 101-12, 4 July 2013, concerning ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. Having regard to the above findings in paragraphs 11 and 12, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention as regards detention in a cage or a glass cabin (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).
14. The applicant in application no. 30057/22 also raised additional complaints. Having examined these complaints, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the complaints about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of detention in a cage or a glass cabin during a court hearing, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 30057/22 as inadmissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. 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 1 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
Acting Deputy Registrar President
_____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | First-instance court and date of detention order | Appeal instance court and date of decision | Procedural deficiencies | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 36904/19
04/07/2019 |
Aleksandr Nikolayevich BUTYANOV
1980 |
|
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/01/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/05/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 27/07/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/10/2021 |
Fifth Appellate Court, 26/02/2021
Fifth Appellate Court, 24/06/2021 Fifth Appellate Court, 08/09/2021 Fifth Appellate Court, 26/11/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov
v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Placement of the applicant in a metal cage during the hearing in the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 19/05/2021,
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Nizhneingashskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court, since 23/10/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022, detention on charges of murder and weapon trafficking, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; 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; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group, Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention |
9,750 |
| 2. | 41841/19
02/03/2020
and
59342/21 18/11/2021 |
Valeriy Igorevich NIKOLAYEV
1990 |
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2020
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/06/2020 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 23/12/2020 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2021 |
Fifth Appellate Court, 28/08/2020
Fifth Appellate Court, 30/09/2020 Fifth Appellate Court, 15/03/2021 Fifth Appellate Court, 20/05/2021
|
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-5tqrq8, 22 May 2012) | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction, since 18/02/2019 – pending as of 16/09/2022,
Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – refusal of long-term family visits (Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, §§ 43 54, 9 June 2020), physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits (Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 51‑56, 13 February 2018), Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits |
9,750 | |
| 3. | 20809/21
17/03/2021 |
Dmitriy Vladimirovich GUKOV
1985 |
|
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 29/02/2020
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 05/02/2020 |
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 26/01/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/02/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; 29/12/2020-10/03/2021 | 8,000 |
| 4. | 23768/21
05/08/2021 |
Anton Indusovich GABITOV
1988 |
|
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 02/03/2021 | Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 08/04/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 5. | 24513/21
27/12/2021 |
Vitaliy Sergeyevich MATERKIN
1991 |
|
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 22/09/2021 | Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28/10/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 6. | 33095/21
09/06/2021 |
Maksim Anatolyevich DOLGODVOROV
1982 |
|
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 12/03/2021 | Second Appellate Court, 19/04/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – between 19/08/2016 and 01/10/2021, transported on numerous occasions (more than 600 times), each of the trips took 45 minutes and more, overcrowding (there were at least 14 detainees in a van each time), some people smoke during transportation, the applicant was transported handcuffed, there were no safety belts or handles,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention – The applicant is in pre-trial detention in SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region, since 19/08/2016 – pending as of 16/09/2022; overcrowding (< 2 sq. m. per person), passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of heating, absence of warm water, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – In pre-trial detention since 18/08/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022; Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, specific defects: 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, Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – in SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region, since 19/08/2016 and ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court: opposite sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance, Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – refusal of long-term family visits; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention, Art. 14 – in conjunction with art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits |
16,300 |
| 7. | 36485/21
23/06/2021 |
Shamil Eduardovich NIGMATZYANOV
1991 |
|
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/04/2021 | Fourth Appellate Court 03/06/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 8. | 40042/21
13/07/2021 |
Timur Narimanovich NUTSALOV
1994 |
|
Cheremushkinsky District Court of Moscow
14/04/2021 |
Moscow City Court, 27/05/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 9. | 44915/21
03/10/2021 |
Aleksandr Viktorovich GERASIMOV
1984 |
|
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021 Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 |
Second Appellate Court, 12/08/2021
Second Appellate Court, 21/10/2021 Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 10. | 48431/21
27/08/2021 |
Natig Agalar Ogly ISKANDAROV
1977 |
|
Vakhitovskiy District Court, 04/05/2021 | Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 28/05/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 11. | 48973/21
15/09/2021 |
Georgiy Nikolayevich ZHAVORONKOV
1956 |
Sivchenko Vadim Tikhonovich
Korolev |
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow,
04/02/2021 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, 31/03/2021 |
Moscow City Court, 23/03/2021
Moscow City Court, 10/06/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 12. | 49774/21
24/09/2021 |
Vadim Leonidovich LITVINOV
1968 |
Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna
Moscow |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 13/05/2021 | Moscow City Court, 07/07/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 13. | 50115/21
29/09/2021 |
Yuriy Edisherovich SHONIYA
1982 |
|
Krasnoselskiy District Court of
St Petersburg, 30/04/2021 |
St Petersburg City Court, 07/06/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 14. | 51000/21
29/09/2021 |
Anatoliy Yuryevich GOLOVKO
1987 |
|
Lomonosov District Court of Arkhangelsk, 13/07/2021 | Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 04/08/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Velskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, since 16/11/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, accused of kidnapping, 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 | 1,500 |
| 15. | 53763/21
22/10/2021 |
Sergey Alekseyevich VNUKOV
1974 |
Brigadin Vladimir Anatolyevich
Moscow |
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 31/03/2021
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 01/07/2021 |
Moscow City Court, 24/05/2021
Moscow City Court, 16/08/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, since 04/02/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, accused of fraud, 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed | 2,300 |
| 16. | 59939/21
11/11/2021 |
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZLUTSEV
1994 |
|
Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, 01/04/2021 | Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/05/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; 07/03/2019-04/06/2021,
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – between 05/03/2019 and 12/05/2020 (the first conviction, reversed on appeal on 10/09/2020 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court) and between 10/09/2020 and 04/06/2021; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention – in respect of the violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention,
Art. 6 (1) in conjunction with Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair trial in view of the inability to have confidential exchanges with his legal counsel during the trial due to his placement in a metal cage, in particular, due to the permanent presence of escort officers near the metal cage and their inspection and reading of all the written communications passed by the applicant, confined in the metal cage, to his legal counsel (raised on appeal) |
9,750 |
| 17. | 61034/21
26/11/2021 |
Aleksey Nikolayevich DUDOCHKIN
1991 |
Pavlova Natalya Valeryevna
Zelenogorsk |
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 21/04/2021
Sovetskiy District Court, 13/05/2021 |
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28/05/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention – lack of compensation remedy for excessive length of review of detention | 500 |
| 18. | 917/22
22/12/2021 |
Anatoliy Petrovich BYKOV
1960 |
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg |
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 15/06/2021,
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 16/06/2021 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 18/08/2021, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 06/10/2021 |
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13/07/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 29/07/2021 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21/09/2021 Fifth Appellate Court, 12/11/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
Prot. 1 Art. 3 – ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections – elections to the State Duma, 17-19/09/2021 |
500 |
| 19. | 1085/22
18/12/2021 |
Yuriy Pavlovich ARTOKHIN
1986 |
Golub Olga Viktorovna
Suzemka |
Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, 17/05/2021 | Moscow City Court, 22/06/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 20. | 1547/22
22/12/2021 |
Kirill Sergeyevich KONSTANTINOV
1988 |
Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich
Moscow |
Dorogomilevskiy District Court of Moscow 22/05/2021 | Moscow City Court 22/06/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested at 12.30 on 19/05/2021, recorded at 9 p.m. on 20/05/2021; raised in detention proceedings, decision of 22/06/2021 (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018) | 3,500 |
| 21. | 2112/22
23/11/2021 |
Sergey Nikolayevich SOBORNOV
1979 |
|
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 04/05/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/08/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 01/09/2021
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 30/09/2021 |
Fourth Appellate Court, 23/06/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 25/08/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 15/09/2021
Fourth Appellate Court, 22/10/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court, detention period to be examined is after 21/07/2022 (the detention period before 21/07/2022 was already found by the Court to violate Art. 5-3 of the Convention), extortion, economic crime, 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding | 1,000 |
| 22. | 3558/22
01/12/2021 |
Rustem Vyacheslavovich FETISOV
1989 |
|
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 14/05/2021 | Fourth Appellate Court, 11/06/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court, since 24/03/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022, drug offence, 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding. | 3,400 |
| 23. | 4511/22
21/12/2021 |
Maksim Pavlovich YEMELYANOV
1981 |
|
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, 07/06/2021 | Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 23/07/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 24. | 5361/22
29/12/2021 |
Dmitriy Sergeyevich LAMANOV
1992 |
Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich
Moscow |
Nadym Town Court, 18/09/2021
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, 09/11/2021 |
Yamalo-Neninskiy Regional Court, 14/10/2021
Moscow City Court, 14/12/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Nadym Town Court of the Yamalo-Nenetsk Region, Yamalo-Nenetsk Regional Court, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, pre-trial detention since 16/09/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022, calls to unauthorized manifestation, 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 | 1,400 |
| 25. | 6211/22
27/12/2021 |
Vadim Vladimirovich SHVETS
1974 |
|
13/05/2021 Nevskiy District Court of
St Petersburg |
21/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 26. | 7052/22
03/01/2022 |
Roman Aleksandrovich KARETNIKOV
1986 |
|
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22/06/2021 |
Second Appellate Court, 14/10/2021
Second Appellate Court, 09/02/2022
Second Appellate Court, 28/07/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant’s placement in a glass cabin during the hearings in the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 16/09/2021; six persons per cabin measuring 3.6 sq. m.,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, transit cell, since 25/01/2017 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged, 0.32 sq. m of personal space, the applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the applicant’s conditions of transport |
9,750 |
| 27. | 8843/22
27/01/2022 |
Ilkin Elshanovich SALIMOV
1994 |
|
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 24/06/2021 | Fifth Appellate Court, 28/07/2021
|
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention | 500 |
| 28. | 9341/22
22/01/2022 |
Farrukh Dilmurodovich TULAYEV
1989 |
Pliskin Pavel Markovich
St Petersburg |
Nevskiy District Court of
St Petersburg, 30/06/2021 |
St Petersburg City Court, 22/07/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 29. | 9500/22
18/01/2022 |
Yevgeniy Olegovich PALAMARCHUK
1996 |
|
Zelenodolsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 07/07/2021 | Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 17/09/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 30. | 11164/22
07/02/2022 |
Artur Aleksandrovich KUPREISHVILI
1989 |
|
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 |
Second Appellate Court, 14/10/2021
Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 31. | 11172/22
03/02/2022 |
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich BOGDANOV
1980 |
|
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16/09/2021
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 |
Second Appellate Court, 21/10/2021
Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court; since 09/11/2014, pending as of 16/09/2022; extorsion, murder, several crimes, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, collective detention orders | 6,500 |
| 32. | 11781/22
14/02/2022 |
Mikhail Yuryevich DUDOCHKIN
1984 |
Timchenko Denis Aleksandrovich
Moscow |
Zheleznogorskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 12/10/2021 | Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 16/12/2021 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 33. | 14873/22
21/02/2022 |
Andrey Nikolayevich KOLPAKOV
1976 |
Gurenko Vitaliy Sergeyevich
Krasnoyarsk |
Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 24/11/2021
Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 19/12/2021 |
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21/12/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 20/01/2022 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – use of metal cage in Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, since 24/11/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022 | 8,000 |
| 34. | 19613/22
08/03/2022 |
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DANILOV
1985 |
|
Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24/12/2021 | Second Appellate Court, 03/02/2022 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 35. | 25042/22
28/04/2022 |
Timur Magomedrasulovich MAGOMEDOV
1984 |
Pliskin Pavel Markovich
St Petersburg |
Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of
St Peterburg, 01/10/2021 Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 13/10/2021 |
St Petersburg City Court, 28/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 03/12/2021 |
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
500 | |
| 36. | 27726/22
27/05/2022 |
Aleksey Olegovich ZADUMIN
1972 |
Kukharev Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Moscow |
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow 04/02/2022 | Moscow City Court on 09/03/2022 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – The applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearing in the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 27/04/2022,
Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, since 02/02/2022, pending as of 16/09/2022, economic crime; 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 |
9,750 |
| 37. | 30057/22
06/06/2022 |
Viktor Vyacheslavovich KRYSOV
2000 |
|
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 02/02/2022 | Fifth Appellate Court, 11/03/2022 | lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03,
§§ 154-58, 22 May 2012) |
Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention | 500 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply