CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAA374627 { height:69.9pt }   Communicated on 10 May 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 37964/17 Roman Sergeyevich SHILOV against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ right to liberty and security of person. The applicants were arrested on suspicion of different crimes. The courts placed them under house arrest or under house arrest and pre-trial detention. They allege that the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest and pre-trial detention (see Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 104-105, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). Some of the applicants also complain about delayed review of their appeals against house-arrest or detention orders (see, mutatis mutandis , Butusov v. Russia , no. 7923/04, §§ 29 35, 22 December 2009, Pichugin v.   Russia , no. 38623/03, §§ 148-56, 23 October 2012) and violation of legal certainty principle in detention proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Velichko v. Russia , no. 19664/07, §§ 61-75, 15 January 2013). Complaints in case no. 816/18 also concern poor conditions of detention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012), detention in a cage during court hearings (see Svinarenko and   Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 84-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), unrecorded detention (see Fartushin v. Russia , no.   38887/09, §§ 47-54, 8 October 2015), authorities’ failure to bring the applicant promptly before the court (see Vakhitov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18232/11 and 2 others, §§ 39-54, 31 January 2017), delayed examination of her appeal against a house arrest order.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Questions in respect of all applicants   (a)     Was the length of the applicants’ house arrest and pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   (b)     Having regard to the reasons expressly relied on by the domestic courts in the house-arrest and detention orders, were the applicants’ house arrest and detention justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   (c)     Did the authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicants, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   (d)     Where the applicants’ house arrest or detention was extended after the date of the applicants’ last letter to the Court, the parties are invited to indicate the overall length of the house arrest and detention and the reasons for the extension and submit the relevant house-arrest and detention orders.   2.     Individual questions   Averina v. Russia , no. 816/18   (a)     Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention from 14 to 18 October 2017? (b)     Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of her confinement in metal cage in the courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos.   59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017)? (c)     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 14 October 2017? (d)     Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge, as required by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention?   (e)     Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 18 October 2017 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   Gimbatov v. Russia , no. 9659/18   Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 10 November 2017 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   Gimbatov v. Russia , no. 28858/18   Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 23 March 2018 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   Burdukovskiy v. Russia , no. 30304/18   Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge house arrest order of 7 May 2018 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   Grinev v. Russia , no. 30760/18   (a)     Did the quashing by the court of cassation on 27 February 2017 of the appeal decision issued on 4 December 2017 by which the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been terminated and he had been placed under house arrest, violate the principle of legal certainty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention? (b)     Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge detention orders of 18 November 2017 and 26   April 2018 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by 1 37964/17 27/04/2017 Roman Sergeyevich SHILOV 18/02/1981 Bryansk Australian, Russian Valeriy Vladimirovich SHUKHARDIN 2 58573/17 03/08/2017 Artemiy Yuryevich SHEVELEV 18/11/1984 Kemerovo Russian Roman Aleksandrovich MAKARENKO 3 816/18 18/12/2017 Olga Vladimirovna AVERINA 05/02/1964 Moscow Russian Aleksandr Vladimirovich KUKHAREV 4 9659/18 13/02/2018 Kazbek Khizriyevich GIMBATOV 05/05/1971 Moscow Russian Dmitriy Vladimirovich PANFILOV 5 11098/18 15/02/2018 Roman Aleksandrovich TAKTASHOV 29/09/1980 Pyatigorsk Russian   6 28858/18 13/06/2018 Kazbek Khizriyevich GIMBATOV 05/05/1971 Moscow Russian Dmitriy Vladimirovich PANFILOV 7 30304/18 19/06/2018 Roman Pavlovich BURDUKOVSKIY 17/11/1984 Ulan - Ude Russian   8 30760/18 22/06/2018 Andrey Vladimirovich GRINEV 11/08/1967 Moscow Russian Aleksey Viktorovich PARSHIN