CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 5 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   78918/17 Razmik Edikovich KAZNACHEYEV against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, 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 complaints raised under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention relating to excessive length of pre-trial detention which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no.   41461/10, 27 November 2012).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     78918/17* 29/10/2017 Razmik Edikovich KAZNACHEYEV 1972     23/01/2014 pending on the date when the application was lodged Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court More than 9   year(s) and 9   month(s) and 29   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - delayed review of the detention order, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Stavropol, 24/01/2018, appeal lodged on 25/01/2018, Stavropol Regional Court, 05/04/2018, raised on 03/06/2018     45621/18* 20/09/2018 Petr Kimovich MILOSERDOV 1976 Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan 25/01/2018 to 19/05/2019 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 25   day(s)   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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeals against the detention orders of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow of 21/02/2018, 20/04/2018, 19/07/2018 were examined by the Moscow City Court on 26/03/2018, 23/05/2018, 15/08/2018 respectively,   Art. 8 (1) - refusal of leave to prisoner for attending funeral of close relatives - On 11/03/2019 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow did not rule as to the applicant’s request to attend his father’s funeral and adjourned the hearing (see Lind v. Russia , §§   87-99); final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 10/04/2019     18658/19 21/03/2019 Maksim Vitalyevich ROSHCHIN 1979 Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow 16/03/2018 to 06/08/2020 Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Lyublinksiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 2   year(s) and 4   month(s) and 22   day(s)   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; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand       32390/20* 28/07/2020 Dmitriy Yuryevich SPORYKHIN 1985     08/08/2018 pending on the date when the application was lodged Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 5   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 15   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed       5326/21* 06/01/2021 Nikolay Nikolayevich PLATOSHKIN 1965   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 04/06/2020 pending on the date when the application was lodged Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 3   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 19   day(s)   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 Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest and prosecution under articles 212 and 207.1 of the Criminal Code for encouraging mass disorders and public disclosure of untrue information; proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court     42407/21* 07/08/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich KUZNETSOV 1986 Yuliya Fedotova Yekaterinburg 12/12/2019 pending on the date when the application was lodged Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court More than 3   year(s) and 11   month(s) and 11   day(s)   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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Moscow City Court, 09/12/2020 - First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction;   09/02/2021 Moscow City Court, 09/03/2021 - First Appellate Court, 13/04/2021’   Moscow City Court, 01/04/2021 - First Appellate Court, 18/05/2021,   Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - Search of the residential flat; Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, 13/12/2019, Moscow City Court rejected the appeal complaint on 09/02/2021; no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search; the applicant is an individual entrepreneur who is charged under Art. 159 § 4 and 303 §   1 of the CC     44113/21* 16/08/2021 Artem Vladimirovich PASHURA 1990     19/09/2019 to 04/03/2021 Severo-Eniseisky District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 14   day(s)   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’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint       13928/22 28/02/2022 Dmitriy Sergeyevich BARANOVSKIY 1979   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 31/01/2021 to 30/08/2021 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 7   month(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction under article 236 of the Criminal Code for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/10/2021, restriction on freedom of movement     18289/22* 19/03/2022 Bulat Galiyevich BILALOV 1982 Yana Viktorovna Kovaleva Kazan 05/11/2019 to 22/09/2021 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 1   year(s) and 10   month(s) and 18   day(s)   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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint     20949/22 04/04/2022 Armen Vardanovich ARAMYAN 1997 Andrey Vasilyevich Sabinin Stavropol 14/04/2021 to 12/04/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 11   month(s) and 30   day(s)   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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention orders of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow and Justice of the Peace of 208 Court Circuit of the Dorogomilovo District of 10/09/2021 (appeal lodged on 13/09/2021), 01/10/2021 (appeal lodged on 04/10/2021) and 09/11/2021 were considered by the Moscow City Court and Dorogomilovskiy District Court on 11/10/2021, 20/10/2021 and 09/12/2021   30581/22 28/05/2022 Nataliya Borisovna TYSHKEVICH 1994 Andrey Vasilyevich Sabinin Stavropol 14/04/2021 to 12/04/2022 Justice of the Peace of the 208 Court Circuit of the Dorogomilovskiy District of Moscow, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Dorogomilovskiy District Court, Moscow City Court 11   month(s) and 30   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Justice of the Peace of the 208 Court Circuit of the Dorogomilovskiy District of Moscow, 09/11/2021, Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, 09/12/2021