CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 10 September 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17976/11 Konstantin Aleksandrovich YEVGENYEV against Russia lodged on 26 February 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Konstantin Aleksandrovich Yevgenyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1981 and is detained in Nizhnekamsk, Republic of Tatarstan. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Shukhardin and Mr D. Khalikov, lawyers practising in Moscow and Naberezhnyye Chelny, Republic of Tatarstan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 26 January 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing. On 28 January 2010 the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (the “Town Court”) ordered his pre-trial detention on the ground that he was suspected of a serious crime, could abscond, re ‑ offend, put pressure on witnesses, interfere with administration of justice. On 12 March 2010 the Town Court extended his pre-trial detention till 27 May 2010. On 18 May 2010 the Town Court convicted him of large-scale attempted drug dealing and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 27 August 2010 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (the “Supreme Court”) quashed the applicant’s conviction, remitted the case for a fresh examination and ordered his pre-trial detention till 27 November 2010. On 10 September 2010 the Town Court scheduled the first hearing and held that the applicant should stay in pre-trial detention without setting any time-limit. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. On 17 September 2010 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s request for release stating that there was no reason to change the measure of restraint with regard to the applicant. On 26 November 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 17   September 2010 on appeal. On 27 September 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention without stating any reasons till 27 November 2010. On 26 November 2010 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention till 27 January 2011. On 24 January 2011 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention till 27 April 2011 on the ground that he was accused of a serious crime and that the circumstances of the case had not changed. On 1 April 2011 the Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal. On 14 March 2011 the Town Court convicted the applicant of large-scale attempted drug dealing and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 22 July 2011 the Supreme Court amended the judgment of 14 March 2011 convicting the applicant of large-scale unlawful storage of drugs and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention about unlawful, lengthy pre-trial detention and delayed review of detention orders. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention ordered in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law on 27 August, 10, 17 September and 26 November 2010? 2.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? 3.     Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge detention orders of 17, 27 September 2010 and 24 January 2011, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? Did the appeal court examine the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 10   September 2010?