{"id":1094,"date":"2019-04-17T16:16:54","date_gmt":"2019-04-17T16:16:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1094"},"modified":"2019-04-24T15:16:47","modified_gmt":"2019-04-24T15:16:47","slug":"case-of-ananchev-and-others-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1094","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ANANCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF ANANCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 7026\/10 and 25 others –
\nsee appended list)<\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 February 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Ananchev and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, which read as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201c3.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.\u201d<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kud\u0142a v.\u00a0Poland [GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7 110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 41-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461\/10, 27\u00a0November\u00a02012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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\u2019 pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0In applications nos.\u00a07026\/10, 50230\/15, 38251\/17 and 70735\/17, the 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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, \u00a7\u00a7 152-158, 22 May 2012, concerning delays in review of detention, and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a027236\/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, regarding absence of detainees from civil proceedings.<\/p>\n

IV.\u00a0\u00a0REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0In applications nos.\u00a041269\/17, 46650\/17, 72606\/17 and 73045\/17 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n

13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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.<\/p>\n

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

14.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

15.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (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.<\/p>\n

16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detentionand the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table,admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of the applications nos.\u00a041269\/17, 46650\/17, 72606\/17 and 73045\/17 inadmissible;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0 Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21February 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1<\/p>\n

Acting Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/p>\n

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nPeriod of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt which issued detention order\/examined appeal<\/strong><\/td>\nLength of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific defects<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n7026\/10<\/p>\n

11\/01\/2010<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Nikolayevich Ananchev<\/strong><\/p>\n

05\/11\/1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

30\/01\/2009 to<\/p>\n

18\/02\/2010<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/td>\n1 year(s) and 20 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;<\/p>\n

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – absence of detainees from civil proceedings – the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to attend court hearings in his tort proceedings against the State before the first-instance court, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (judgment of 13\/05\/2013), and appeal court, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

(judgment of 11\/12\/2013)<\/td>\n

2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n63685\/14<\/p>\n

02\/09\/2014<\/td>\n

Igor Vladimirovich Shchenikov<\/strong><\/p>\n

07\/05\/1979<\/td>\n

Shprits Yevgeniy Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Yaroslavl<\/td>\n

26\/10\/2013 to<\/p>\n

19\/10\/2015<\/td>\n

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n50230\/15<\/p>\n

06\/10\/2015<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vadimovich Khoroshavin<\/strong><\/p>\n

26\/11\/1959<\/td>\n

Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

04\/03\/2015 to<\/p>\n

09\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 6 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed;<\/p>\n

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint as the case progressed;<\/p>\n

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;<\/p>\n

collective detention orders.<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Delayed appeal review of detention renewals:<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2016 Moscow City Court \u2013 Appeal 05\/07\/2016 Moscow City Court;<\/p>\n

04\/03\/2015 Moscow City Court \u2013 Appeal 06\/04\/2015 Moscow City Court;<\/p>\n

22\/04\/2015 Moscow City Court \u2013 Appeal 24\/06\/2015 Moscow City Court;<\/p>\n

24\/08\/2015 Moscow City Court \u2013 Appeal 05\/10\/2015 Moscow City Court;<\/p>\n

25\/11\/2015 Moscow City Court \u2013 Appeal03\/02\/2016 Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

5,100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n9712\/17<\/p>\n

24\/01\/2017<\/td>\n

Konstantin Igorevich Ramzin<\/strong><\/p>\n

16\/07\/1990<\/td>\n

Sokalskiy Boris Borisovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

28\/04\/2015 to<\/p>\n

21\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow Regional Court<\/td>\n1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n2,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n38251\/17<\/p>\n

15\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Viktor Ivanovich Filatov<\/strong><\/p>\n

27\/10\/1961<\/td>\n

Minina Irina Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

29\/06\/2015<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Meshchanskiy District Court,<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Russia<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 10 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Collective detention orders;<\/p>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as thecase progressed; 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, as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the detention order of 27\/09\/2016, appeal review on 15\/11\/2016<\/td>\n6,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n41269\/17<\/p>\n

30\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Arman Slavikovich Ayrapetyan<\/strong><\/p>\n

21\/07\/1977<\/td>\n

Yermakova Galina Alekseyevna<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/td>\n

01\/10\/2014 to<\/p>\n

05\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

Ussuriysk Town Court of the Primorye Region; Primorye Regional Court<\/td>\n3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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, as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n4,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n46292\/17<\/p>\n

14\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Olegovich Ebingard<\/strong><\/p>\n

25\/11\/1988<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

17\/09\/2015 to<\/p>\n

12\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

Syktyvkar Town Court;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n

2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 27 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Collective detention orders;<\/p>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as cased progressed;<\/p>\n

failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or abscondingas case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n46650\/17<\/p>\n

02\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Denis Igorevich Armyakov<\/strong><\/p>\n

22\/04\/1979<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

12\/12\/2012<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Syktyvkar Town Court;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

6 year(s) and 27 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Collective detention orders;<\/p>\n

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n48129\/17<\/p>\n

29\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Konstantin Ivanovich Mashnin<\/strong><\/p>\n

27\/12\/1979<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

20\/01\/2016<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskyy District Court of Kazan;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks ofabsconding or obstructing justice;fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, as the case progressed;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n48492\/17<\/p>\n

26\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Farid Ramazanovich Mustafayev<\/strong><\/p>\n

08\/07\/1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

04\/02\/2015 to<\/p>\n

30\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Military Court of the Privolzhye Circuit;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic<\/td>\n

3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or abscondingas case progressed;<\/p>\n

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed;<\/p>\n

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n4,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n49572\/17<\/p>\n

11\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Konstantin Viktorovich Voronov<\/strong><\/p>\n

28\/12\/1983<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

20\/06\/2015 to<\/p>\n

28\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Yugorskiy District Court of theKhanty<\/p>\n

Mansy Autonomous Region;<\/p>\n

Khanty-Mansy District Court of the Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region;Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Regional Court of Yugra<\/td>\n

2 year(s) and 9 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n60773\/17<\/p>\n

10\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Anatoliy Nikolayevich Livada<\/strong><\/p>\n

21\/04\/1953<\/td>\n

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Rostov-on-Don<\/td>\n

27\/03\/2017<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n64359\/17<\/p>\n

17\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Ilnar Marselyevich Abdulmanov<\/strong><\/p>\n

27\/11\/1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

07\/02\/2017<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 1 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n64589\/17<\/p>\n

21\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Yuriy Ivanovich Kucherenko<\/strong><\/p>\n

15\/04\/1983<\/td>\n

Kucherenko Roman Ivanovich<\/p>\n

Stavropol<\/td>\n

03\/03\/2017 to<\/p>\n

19\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Promyshlennyy District Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court<\/td>\n8 month(s) and 17 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n68736\/17<\/p>\n

05\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Mikhail Nikolayevich Belyayev<\/strong><\/p>\n

15\/10\/1968<\/td>\n

Okushko Tatyana Borisovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

20\/02\/2017<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Taganskiy District Court of Moscow;<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Collective detention orders;<\/p>\n

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.<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n2,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n70196\/17<\/p>\n

10\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Vladimir Leonidovich Korostelev<\/strong><\/p>\n

08\/02\/1950<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

07\/10\/2015<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\nMore than<\/p>\n

3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed;<\/p>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;collective detention orders;failure to assess the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n4,400<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n70735\/17<\/p>\n

01\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Aydakin<\/strong><\/p>\n

25\/02\/1998<\/td>\n

Filonova Oksana Gennadyevna<\/p>\n

Sarov<\/td>\n

21\/03\/2017 to<\/p>\n

16\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Sarov Town Court;<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/td>\n

2 month(s) and 27 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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.<\/td>\nArt. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the request for a change of the measure of restraint dismissed by decision of the Sarov Town Court of 06\/04\/2017 was not examined on appeal.<\/p>\n

Decision of 21\/04\/2017 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court which noted that such a decision was not amenable to an appeal as it was issued while the criminal proceedings were still pending and that it could only be resolved when the trial court was to determine the merits of the charges in the final court judgment. However, it was examined by the cassation instance court on 29\/06\/2017 – that is more than 2 months later.<\/td>\n

500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n72606\/17<\/p>\n

29\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Viktor Ivanovich Abrosichkin<\/strong><\/p>\n

03\/02\/1952<\/td>\n

Gusakov Aleksandr Ivanovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

01\/02\/2017<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow;<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

1 year(s) and<\/p>\n

11 month(s) and 7 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Collective detention orders;<\/p>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n73045\/17<\/p>\n

03\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Maksim Andreyevich Alekseyenko<\/strong><\/p>\n

10\/11\/1981<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

22\/03\/2017<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Moscow District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod;<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

1 year(s) and<\/p>\n

9 month(s) and 17 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of<\/p>\n

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.<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n75119\/17<\/p>\n

18\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Khadidzha Ruslanovna Khamkhoyeva<\/strong><\/p>\n

25\/05\/1992<\/td>\n

Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

29\/01\/2017 to<\/p>\n

13\/04\/2018<\/td>\n

Prigorodnyy District Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Northern Osetiya-Alaniya Republic<\/td>\n

1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n76640\/17<\/p>\n

02\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Sementsov<\/strong><\/p>\n

19\/01\/1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

27\/04\/2013 to<\/p>\n

29\/12\/2015<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

20\/07\/2016<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok; Ussuriysk District Court of the Primorye Region;<\/p>\n

Primorye Regional Court<\/td>\n

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

More than<\/p>\n

2 year(s) and<\/p>\n

5 month(s) and<\/p>\n

19 day(s)<\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;collective detention orders;failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n6,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n77729\/17<\/p>\n

30\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Denis Vladimirovich Irza<\/strong><\/p>\n

01\/10\/1982<\/td>\n

Abubakarov Magamed Saltanmuratovich<\/p>\n

Nalchik<\/td>\n

16\/04\/2015<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic and<\/p>\n

Prokhladnenskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

3 year(s) and<\/p>\n

8 month(s) and 23 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed;<\/p>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed;failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n5,100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n79395\/17<\/p>\n

07\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Semenov<\/strong><\/p>\n

02\/04\/1984<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

02\/11\/2016 to<\/p>\n

10\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/td>\n11 month(s) and 9 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n80186\/17<\/p>\n

23\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Roman Vladimirovich Chernoknizhnyy<\/strong><\/p>\n

31\/01\/1979<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

01\/03\/2012<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Syktyvkar Town Court;<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n

More than<\/p>\n

6 year(s) and<\/p>\n

10 month(s) and 7 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;collective detention orders.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n9,200<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n80336\/17<\/p>\n

14\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Ruslan Andreyevich Piotrovskiy<\/strong><\/p>\n

12\/10\/1988<\/td>\n

Rassokhin Artem Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

02\/05\/2017 to<\/p>\n

05\/04\/2018<\/td>\n

Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg;<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/td>\n

11 month(s) and 4 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n80395\/17<\/p>\n

13\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Maksim Anatolyevich Kopytkov<\/strong><\/p>\n

02\/06\/1985<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

06\/12\/2016<\/p>\n

Pending.<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/td>\nMore than<\/p>\n

2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n