{"id":22193,"date":"2024-02-01T10:21:59","date_gmt":"2024-02-01T10:21:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22193"},"modified":"2024-02-01T10:21:59","modified_gmt":"2024-02-01T10:21:59","slug":"case-of-butyanov-and-others-v-russia-36904-19-and-37-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22193","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 36904\/19 and 37 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention.<\/p>\n

\n

European Court of Human Rights
\nSECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 36904\/19 and 37 others \u2013 see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 February 2024<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2024,<\/p>\n

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

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

1. The 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. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

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

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

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.<\/p>\n

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

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Having 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. Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n

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, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. The Court reiterates that Article 5 \u00a7 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, \u00a7 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual\u2019s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State\u2019s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064\/05, \u00a7 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the \u201cspeediness\u201d requirement of Article 5 \u00a7 4).<\/p>\n

9. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\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 Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 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.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, 10 January 2012, as regards conditions of detention and lack of effective remedy; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461\/10, 27\u00a0November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre\u2011trial 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\u00a060980\/14, \u00a7 126, 4\u00a0October 2016, concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage or in a glass cabin in courtrooms; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no.\u00a043149\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 51-56, 13 February 2018, and Resin v. Russia, no. 9348\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 39-41, 18 December 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in prison; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12 others, \u00a7\u00a7 76\u201179, 26 June 2018, as regards unlawful detention; Mariya Alekhina and Others v.\u00a0Russia, no. 38004\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Tomov and\u00a0Others v. Russia, nos. 18255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 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, \u00a7\u00a7 69-83, 28\u00a0May 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, \u00a7\u00a7 101-12, 4\u00a0July 2013, concerning ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections.<\/p>\n

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019 complaints under Article 13 of the Convention as regards detention in a cage or a glass cabin (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597\/13, \u00a7 27, 26 March 2019).<\/p>\n

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\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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 78-80, 11\u00a0July 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

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

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

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

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;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention;<\/p>\n

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);<\/p>\n

6. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 February 2024, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention
\n(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of 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\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

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

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

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nFirst-instance court and date of detention order<\/strong><\/td>\nAppeal instance court and date of decision<\/strong><\/td>\nProcedural deficiencies<\/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)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n36904\/19<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Nikolayevich BUTYANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13\/01\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19\/05\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 27\/07\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 26\/02\/2021<\/p>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 24\/06\/2021<\/p>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 08\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 26\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov<\/em><\/p>\n

v. Russia <\/em>[GC],<\/p>\n

no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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,<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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,<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n41841\/19<\/p>\n

02\/03\/2020<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

59342\/21<\/p>\n

18\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Valeriy Igorevich NIKOLAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nKrasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25\/03\/2020<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25\/06\/2020<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 23\/12\/2020<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 28\/08\/2020<\/p>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 30\/09\/2020<\/p>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 15\/03\/2021<\/p>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 20\/05\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v.\u00a0Russia<\/em> [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0154-5tqrq8, 22 May 2012)<\/td>\nArt. 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,<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – refusal of long-term family visits (Resin v. Russia<\/em>, no. 9348\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 39-41, 18\u00a0December 2018, and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia<\/em>, no. 63748\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 43 54, 9 June 2020), physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits (Andrey Smirnov v. Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a043149\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a051\u201156, 13 February 2018),<\/p>\n

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<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n20809\/21<\/p>\n

17\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Vladimirovich GUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 29\/02\/2020<\/p>\n

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 05\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 26\/01\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; 29\/12\/2020-10\/03\/2021<\/td>\n8,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n23768\/21<\/p>\n

05\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Anton Indusovich GABITOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 02\/03\/2021<\/td>\nKrasnoyarsk Regional Court, 08\/04\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n24513\/21<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Sergeyevich MATERKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 22\/09\/2021<\/td>\nKrasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28\/10\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n33095\/21<\/p>\n

09\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1982<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 12\/03\/2021<\/td>\nSecond Appellate Court, 19\/04\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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,<\/p>\n

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,<\/p>\n

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,<\/p>\n

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<\/p>\n

the date when the application was lodged<\/p>\n

with the Court: opposite sex operators, video<\/p>\n

surveillance in a lavatory and\/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance,<\/p>\n

Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – refusal of long-term family visits;<\/p>\n

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,<\/p>\n

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<\/td>\n

16,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n36485\/21<\/p>\n

23\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Shamil Eduardovich NIGMATZYANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29\/04\/2021<\/td>\nFourth Appellate Court 03\/06\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n40042\/21<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Timur Narimanovich NUTSALOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Cheremushkinsky District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n

14\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 27\/05\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n44915\/21<\/p>\n

03\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Viktorovich GERASIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22\/06\/2021<\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Second Appellate Court, 12\/08\/2021<\/p>\n

Second Appellate Court, 21\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

Second Appellate Court, 03\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n48431\/21<\/p>\n

27\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Natig Agalar Ogly ISKANDAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Vakhitovskiy District Court, 04\/05\/2021<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 28\/05\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n48973\/21<\/p>\n

15\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Georgiy Nikolayevich ZHAVORONKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/td>\n

Sivchenko Vadim Tikhonovich<\/p>\n

Korolev<\/td>\n

Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow,<\/p>\n

04\/02\/2021<\/p>\n

Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow,<\/p>\n

31\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 23\/03\/2021<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court,<\/p>\n

10\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n49774\/21<\/p>\n

24\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Vadim Leonidovich LITVINOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 13\/05\/2021<\/td>\nMoscow City Court, 07\/07\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n50115\/21<\/p>\n

29\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Yuriy Edisherovich SHONIYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Krasnoselskiy District Court of<\/p>\n

St Petersburg, 30\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 07\/06\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n51000\/21<\/p>\n

29\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Anatoliy Yuryevich GOLOVKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Lomonosov District Court of Arkhangelsk, 13\/07\/2021<\/td>\nArkhangelsk Regional Court, 04\/08\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/td>\n1,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n53763\/21<\/p>\n

22\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Alekseyevich VNUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

Brigadin Vladimir Anatolyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 31\/03\/2021<\/p>\n

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, 01\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 24\/05\/2021<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court, 16\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/td>\n2,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n59939\/21<\/p>\n

11\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZLUTSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, 01\/04\/2021<\/td>\nKrasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13\/05\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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,<\/p>\n

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,<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention – in respect of the violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) in conjunction with Art. 6 (3) (c) \u2013 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)<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n61034\/21<\/p>\n

26\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Nikolayevich DUDOCHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Pavlova Natalya Valeryevna<\/p>\n

Zelenogorsk<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 21\/04\/2021<\/p>\n

Sovetskiy District Court, 13\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 28\/05\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 22\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention – lack of compensation remedy for excessive length of review of detention<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n917\/22<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Anatoliy Petrovich BYKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 15\/06\/2021,<\/p>\n

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 16\/06\/2021<\/p>\n

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 18\/08\/2021,<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 06\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13\/07\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 29\/07\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

Fifth Appellate Court, 12\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

Prot. 1 Art. 3 – ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections – elections to the State Duma, 17-19\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n1085\/22<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Yuriy Pavlovich ARTOKHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Golub Olga Viktorovna<\/p>\n

Suzemka<\/td>\n

Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, 17\/05\/2021<\/td>\nMoscow City Court, 22\/06\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n1547\/22<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Kirill Sergeyevich KONSTANTINOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Dorogomilevskiy District Court of Moscow 22\/05\/2021<\/td>\nMoscow City Court 22\/06\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) \u2013 unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 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<\/em>, nos. 7077\/06 and 12 others, \u00a7\u00a7 76-79, 26 June 2018)<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n2112\/22<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Nikolayevich SOBORNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 04\/05\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03\/08\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 01\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 30\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Fourth Appellate Court, 23\/06\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fourth Appellate Court, 25\/08\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fourth Appellate Court, 15\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fourth Appellate Court, 22\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58, 22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n3558\/22<\/p>\n

01\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Rustem Vyacheslavovich FETISOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 14\/05\/2021<\/td>\nFourth Appellate Court, 11\/06\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.<\/td>\n3,400<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n4511\/22<\/p>\n

21\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Pavlovich YEMELYANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, 07\/06\/2021<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 23\/07\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n5361\/22<\/p>\n

29\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Sergeyevich LAMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Nadym Town Court, 18\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, 09\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Yamalo-Neninskiy Regional Court, 14\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow City Court, 14\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding<\/td>\n1,400<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n6211\/22<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Vadim Vladimirovich SHVETS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

13\/05\/2021 Nevskiy District Court of<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

21\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n7052\/22<\/p>\n

03\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Roman Aleksandrovich KARETNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24\/12\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 22\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Second Appellate Court, 14\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Second Appellate Court, 09\/02\/2022<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Second Appellate Court, 28\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant\u2019s 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.,<\/p>\n

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,<\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the applicant\u2019s conditions of transport<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n8843\/22<\/p>\n

27\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Ilkin Elshanovich SALIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 24\/06\/2021<\/td>\nFifth Appellate Court, 28\/07\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n9341\/22<\/p>\n

22\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Farrukh Dilmurodovich TULAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Pliskin Pavel Markovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Nevskiy District Court of<\/p>\n

St Petersburg, 30\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 22\/07\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n9500\/22<\/p>\n

18\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Olegovich PALAMARCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Zelenodolsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 07\/07\/2021<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 17\/09\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n11164\/22<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Artur Aleksandrovich KUPREISHVILI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Second Appellate Court, 14\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Second Appellate Court, 03\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n11172\/22<\/p>\n

03\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich BOGDANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 16\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Second Appellate Court, 21\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Second Appellate Court, 03\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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<\/td>\n6,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n11781\/22<\/p>\n

14\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Mikhail Yuryevich DUDOCHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Timchenko Denis Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Zheleznogorskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, 12\/10\/2021<\/td>\nKrasnoyarsk Regional Court, 16\/12\/2021<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n14873\/22<\/p>\n

21\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Andrey Nikolayevich KOLPAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Gurenko Vitaliy Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 24\/11\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yeniseyskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 19\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 21\/12\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 20\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

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<\/td>\n8,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n19613\/22<\/p>\n

08\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1985<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 24\/12\/2021<\/td>\nSecond Appellate Court, 03\/02\/2022<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n25042\/22<\/p>\n

28\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Timur Magomedrasulovich MAGOMEDOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Pliskin Pavel Markovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of<\/p>\n

St Peterburg, 01\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of<\/p>\n

St Petersburg, 13\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 28\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 03\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n27726\/22<\/p>\n

27\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksey Olegovich ZADUMIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Kukharev Aleksandr Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow 04\/02\/2022<\/td>\nMoscow City Court on 09\/03\/2022<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – The applicant\u2019s placement in a metal cage during the hearing in the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 27\/04\/2022,<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n30057\/22<\/p>\n

06\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Viktor Vyacheslavovich KRYSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 02\/02\/2022<\/td>\nFifth Appellate Court, 11\/03\/2022<\/td>\nlack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia<\/em> [GC], no. 5826\/03,<\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7 154-58,<\/p>\n

22 May 2012)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n