CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Published on 27 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   52342/20 Igor Olegovich LAVROV against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 March 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern the complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018; Rozhkov v.   Russia (no. 2), no.   38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017; Butkevich v.   Russia, no.   5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v.   Russia, no.   6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011; and Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law     52342/20* 23/04/2021 Igor Olegovich LAVROV 1982     06/12/2019, 6.22 p.m. 07/12/2019, 2.05 a.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018)       18771/21* 05/03/2021 Aleksandr Alekseyevich MASHYANOV 1989     26/04/2016, 8.30 a.m. 28/04/2016, 1.05 p.m. Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, § 82 Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the applicant was afforded compensation of RUB 8,000 (approximately EUR 95); the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Russia of 11/02/2021     22876/21* 01/04/2021 Ramzil Gazinurovich GALIMZYANOV 1982 Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov Kazan 23/12/2020, 1 p.m. 23/12/2020, 9 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018). The applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.   47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The applicant started to serve his sentence of 14   days’ administrative arrest immediately after the judgment in his case was delivered by the court at first level of jurisdiction; lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (Tsvetkova and Others)     22990/21* 08/04/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich MEDOV 1977 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog 24/02/2021, 5.30 p.m. 25/02/2021, 3.05 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Pre-trial detention from 24/02/2021 to 16/12/2021 - Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis. The applicant, a deputy head of the regional customs office, was charged with bribery. He was employed, had permanent place of residence, pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecution. Apart from the seriousness of the charges, no evidence was furnished by the courts to support their findings that the applicant would abscond or re-offend     24881/21 10/05/2021 Yelena Ivanovna SKOROBOGATOVA 1970 Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya Strasbourg 22/05/2020 25/05/2020 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018) Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no grounds to claim compensation on domestic level as the applicant’s belated release had not been acknowledged as unlawful in the domestic proceedings     37025/21* 03/07/2021 Ivan Viktorovich BELAVKIN 1972 Aleksandr Vitalyevich Urychev Chelyabinsk 03/06/2021, 8.30 a.m. 03/06/2021, 12.40 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention in conjunction with Article 5 § 1   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was placed in a metal cage during the hearing at the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinks on 03/06/2021   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012), Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk 29/07/2021 and 28/09/2021, upheld by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 31/08/2021 and 08/11/2021, respectively