I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in CHEMURZIYEV v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-03-06
  • Communication date: 2024-10-03
  • Application number(s): 24644/24
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-3, 5-4
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
    Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
    Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.808625
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 28 October 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 3 October 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the application marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised.
This part of the application 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 table, 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 application concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention relating to deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.
5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no.
5829/04, §§ 219-48, 31 May 2011 and Lebedev v. Russia, no.
4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007).
APPENDIX – Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies 24644/24* 07/05/2021 Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV 1969 Vanessa Kogan Moscow Kislovodsk Town Court, 27/01/2021, appeal lodged on 01/02/2021 (proceedings regarding the applicant’s request for release) Stavropol Regional Court, 19/02/2021, the appellate court refused to consider the appeal stating that the applicant should challenge detention orders, he did not have to lodge any separate claims for release lack of review of detention (see Manerov v. Russia, no.
49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016) Published on 28 October 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 3 October 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the application marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised.
This part of the application 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 table, 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 application concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention relating to deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.
5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no.
5829/04, §§ 219-48, 31 May 2011 and Lebedev v. Russia, no.
4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007).
APPENDIX – Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies 24644/24* 07/05/2021 Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV 1969 Vanessa Kogan Moscow Kislovodsk Town Court, 27/01/2021, appeal lodged on 01/02/2021 (proceedings regarding the applicant’s request for release) Stavropol Regional Court, 19/02/2021, the appellate court refused to consider the appeal stating that the applicant should challenge detention orders, he did not have to lodge any separate claims for release lack of review of detention (see Manerov v. Russia, no.
49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016)

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YALAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2945/18 and 6 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
6 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yalakov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 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. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained of the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 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, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006). 9. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 219-48, 31 May 2011; and Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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 proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 12. The applicant in application no. 2945/18, 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 35 § 3 (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 Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits in detention facilities and lack of effective remedies. 13. The applicant in application no. 24973/21 also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. 14. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. 15. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874/11, §§ 113-15, 18 February 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016 and Karaosmanoglu and Özden v. Turkey, no. 4807/08, §§ 89-91, 17 June 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(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;
(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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
First-instance court and date of detention order
Appeal instance court and date of decision
Procedural deficiencies
Other complaints under well‐established case‐law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
2945/18
30/11/2017

and

11813/18
08/02/2018
Ilsur
Ildusovich YALAKOV
1993

Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 01/11/2017

Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 15/12/2017

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)
Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - Prison SIZO no. 3 Kazan, refusal of short-term family visits: on 06/06/2017 the judge refused the applicant’s request, referring to the prevailing practice of the Supreme Court not to allow prison visits until the conviction had become final; on 03/10/2017 he reiterated his request to see his mother and brother and also asked for permission to call them on the phone; on the same day the trial judge refused his request on the grounds that all defendants were charged with membership of a criminal organisation and that “meetings with family members could interfere with the establishment of the truth”; he also refused to pass his appeal on to the Supreme Court on the ground that an appeal against an interim decision should be filed together with an appeal against the judgment on the merits (raised on 30/11/2017),

Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits
4,000
4748/18
13/12/2017
Konstantin Valeryevich KARNAUKHOV
1988

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 16/05/2017 and 08/08/2017

Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,
14/07/2017 and 08/09/2017
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
8701/18
22/01/2018
Viktor Vladimirovich ALEKSEYEV
1991

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 08/08/2017

Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 08/09/2017

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
24973/21
12/04/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MURAVLEV
1973

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 27/10/2020, appeal lodged on 28/10/2020

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 08/12/2020
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
396/22
10/12/2021
Nikita Aleksandrovich YEFREMOV
1993

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 05/10/2021, appeal lodged on 06/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 07/12/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
24644/24
07/05/2021
Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV
1969

Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
Kislovodsk Town Court, 27/01/2021, appeal lodged on 01/02/2021
Stavropol Regional Court, 19/02/2021, the appellate court refused to consider the appeal stating that the applicant should challenge detention orders, he did not have to lodge any separate claims for release
lack of review of detention (Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016)

500

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YALAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2945/18 and 6 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
6 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yalakov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 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. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained of the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 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, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006). 9. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 219-48, 31 May 2011; and Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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 proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the table appended below, cannot be considered compatible with the requirements set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 12. The applicant in application no. 2945/18, 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 35 § 3 (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 Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits in detention facilities and lack of effective remedies. 13. The applicant in application no. 24973/21 also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. 14. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. 15. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874/11, §§ 113-15, 18 February 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016 and Karaosmanoglu and Özden v. Turkey, no. 4807/08, §§ 89-91, 17 June 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(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;
(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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
First-instance court and date of detention order
Appeal instance court and date of decision
Procedural deficiencies
Other complaints under well‐established case‐law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
2945/18
30/11/2017

and

11813/18
08/02/2018
Ilsur
Ildusovich YALAKOV
1993

Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 01/11/2017

Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 15/12/2017

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)
Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - Prison SIZO no. 3 Kazan, refusal of short-term family visits: on 06/06/2017 the judge refused the applicant’s request, referring to the prevailing practice of the Supreme Court not to allow prison visits until the conviction had become final; on 03/10/2017 he reiterated his request to see his mother and brother and also asked for permission to call them on the phone; on the same day the trial judge refused his request on the grounds that all defendants were charged with membership of a criminal organisation and that “meetings with family members could interfere with the establishment of the truth”; he also refused to pass his appeal on to the Supreme Court on the ground that an appeal against an interim decision should be filed together with an appeal against the judgment on the merits (raised on 30/11/2017),

Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits
4,000
4748/18
13/12/2017
Konstantin Valeryevich KARNAUKHOV
1988

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 16/05/2017 and 08/08/2017

Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,
14/07/2017 and 08/09/2017
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
8701/18
22/01/2018
Viktor Vladimirovich ALEKSEYEV
1991

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 08/08/2017

Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 08/09/2017

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
24973/21
12/04/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MURAVLEV
1973

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 27/10/2020, appeal lodged on 28/10/2020

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 08/12/2020
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
396/22
10/12/2021
Nikita Aleksandrovich YEFREMOV
1993

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 05/10/2021, appeal lodged on 06/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 07/12/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
24644/24
07/05/2021
Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV
1969

Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
Kislovodsk Town Court, 27/01/2021, appeal lodged on 01/02/2021
Stavropol Regional Court, 19/02/2021, the appellate court refused to consider the appeal stating that the applicant should challenge detention orders, he did not have to lodge any separate claims for release
lack of review of detention (Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016)

500

No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
First-instance court and date of detention order
Appeal instance court and date of decision
Procedural deficiencies
Other complaints under well‐established case‐law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
2945/18
30/11/2017

and

11813/18
08/02/2018
Ilsur
Ildusovich YALAKOV
1993

Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 01/11/2017

Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 15/12/2017

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)
Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - Prison SIZO no. 3 Kazan, refusal of short-term family visits: on 06/06/2017 the judge refused the applicant’s request, referring to the prevailing practice of the Supreme Court not to allow prison visits until the conviction had become final; on 03/10/2017 he reiterated his request to see his mother and brother and also asked for permission to call them on the phone; on the same day the trial judge refused his request on the grounds that all defendants were charged with membership of a criminal organisation and that “meetings with family members could interfere with the establishment of the truth”; he also refused to pass his appeal on to the Supreme Court on the ground that an appeal against an interim decision should be filed together with an appeal against the judgment on the merits (raised on 30/11/2017),

Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits
4,000
4748/18
13/12/2017
Konstantin Valeryevich KARNAUKHOV
1988

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 16/05/2017 and 08/08/2017

Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,
14/07/2017 and 08/09/2017
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
8701/18
22/01/2018
Viktor Vladimirovich ALEKSEYEV
1991

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 08/08/2017

Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 08/09/2017

lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
24973/21
12/04/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MURAVLEV
1973

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 27/10/2020, appeal lodged on 28/10/2020

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 08/12/2020
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
396/22
10/12/2021
Nikita Aleksandrovich YEFREMOV
1993

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 05/10/2021, appeal lodged on 06/10/2021
St Petersburg City Court, 07/12/2021
lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

500
24644/24
07/05/2021
Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV
1969

Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
Kislovodsk Town Court, 27/01/2021, appeal lodged on 01/02/2021
Stavropol Regional Court, 19/02/2021, the appellate court refused to consider the appeal stating that the applicant should challenge detention orders, he did not have to lodge any separate claims for release
lack of review of detention (Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016)

500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.