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

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CHICHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 27564/19 and 7 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Chichin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,
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 excessive length of their pre-trial 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 applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‐XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‐X, with further references). 8. In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was unreasonable and excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11. In applications nos. 50915/19, 639/21 and 1191/21, the applicants 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning lengthy review of pre-trial detention; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport. 12. In application nos. 27564/19, 50915/19 and 639/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. 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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
27564/19
20/05/2019
Igor Stepanovich CHICHIN
1966
Mikhail Igorevich Shogin
Petrozavodsk
25/04/2018 to
04/07/2019
Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Karelia Republic
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 day(s)

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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

1,300
47112/19
24/07/2019
Konstantin Vladislavovich VAGIN
1968
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk
St Petersburg
16/01/2019 – pending
Presnenskiy District Court, Moscow City Court
More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 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

3,700
50915/19
10/09/2019
Tatyana Vladimirovna MASLOVA
1970
Anatoliy Anatolyevich Frolov
Lipetsk
28/06/2019 to
06/04/2020
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court
9 month(s) and
10 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 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;
In the case of Bibik and Others (10602/17, [Committee],) on 27 June 2019 the Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the unreasonably lengthy detention of the applicant since her arrest on 29/06/2015 (application no. 2297/18); the applicant remained in custody following the Court’s judgment in her first case. Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant by van from IZ-1 Lipetsk Region to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk on multiple occasions from 02/10/2018 onwards (‘stakan’-type cubicle, 0.36 sq.m., regular roundtrip journeys, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air)
1,300
7714/20
24/01/2020
Sergey Gennadyevich PIMONOV
1975
Mikhail Igorevich Shogin
Petrozavodsk
17/10/2019 – pending
Petrozavodsk Town Court, Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic
More than 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 11 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

2,900
39990/20
10/12/2020
Mariya Viktorovna SKOBELTSEVA
1970
Lev Valeryevich Glukhov
Moscow
18/08/2018 to
15/07/2019

20/04/2020 to
14/04/2021

13/09/2021 – pending
Moscow City Court; Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow
10 month(s) and 28 day(s)

11 month(s) and 26 day(s)

More than 9 month(s) and 15 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, 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

2,900
639/21
02/12/2020
Romans DAVIS
1961
Sergey Sorokin Ivanovich
Moscow
21/01/2020 – pending
Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
7 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
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 11/06/2020 (appeal hearing on 14/07/2020)
3,100
789/21
14/12/2020
Aleksandr Yuryevich USTINOV
1988
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Kuleshov
Yekaterinburg
30/11/2018 – pending
First Court of Appeal, Moscow
More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 29 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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

3,700
1191/21
14/12/2020
Estefani ALEJO AVILA
1996
Olga Viktorovna Golub
Suzemka,
Bryansk Region
24/09/2019 – pending
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)

collective detention orders, 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; 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 order of 22/04/2020 - appealed on 13/05/2020 (according to the website of the Moscow City Court) - reviewed on 22/06/2020; detention order of 13/07/2020 - appealed on 16/07/2020 - reviewed on 12/08/2020
3,500

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CHICHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 27564/19 and 7 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
13 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Chichin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,
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 excessive length of their pre-trial 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 applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‐XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‐X, with further references). 8. In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was unreasonable and excessive. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11. In applications nos. 50915/19, 639/21 and 1191/21, the applicants 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning lengthy review of pre-trial detention; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport. 12. In application nos. 27564/19, 50915/19 and 639/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. 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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
27564/19
20/05/2019
Igor Stepanovich CHICHIN
1966
Mikhail Igorevich Shogin
Petrozavodsk
25/04/2018 to
04/07/2019
Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Karelia Republic
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 day(s)

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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

1,300
47112/19
24/07/2019
Konstantin Vladislavovich VAGIN
1968
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk
St Petersburg
16/01/2019 – pending
Presnenskiy District Court, Moscow City Court
More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 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

3,700
50915/19
10/09/2019
Tatyana Vladimirovna MASLOVA
1970
Anatoliy Anatolyevich Frolov
Lipetsk
28/06/2019 to
06/04/2020
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court
9 month(s) and
10 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 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;
In the case of Bibik and Others (10602/17, [Committee],) on 27 June 2019 the Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the unreasonably lengthy detention of the applicant since her arrest on 29/06/2015 (application no. 2297/18); the applicant remained in custody following the Court’s judgment in her first case. Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant by van from IZ-1 Lipetsk Region to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk on multiple occasions from 02/10/2018 onwards (‘stakan’-type cubicle, 0.36 sq.m., regular roundtrip journeys, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air)
1,300
7714/20
24/01/2020
Sergey Gennadyevich PIMONOV
1975
Mikhail Igorevich Shogin
Petrozavodsk
17/10/2019 – pending
Petrozavodsk Town Court, Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic
More than 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 11 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

2,900
39990/20
10/12/2020
Mariya Viktorovna SKOBELTSEVA
1970
Lev Valeryevich Glukhov
Moscow
18/08/2018 to
15/07/2019

20/04/2020 to
14/04/2021

13/09/2021 – pending
Moscow City Court; Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow
10 month(s) and 28 day(s)

11 month(s) and 26 day(s)

More than 9 month(s) and 15 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, 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

2,900
639/21
02/12/2020
Romans DAVIS
1961
Sergey Sorokin Ivanovich
Moscow
21/01/2020 – pending
Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
7 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
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 11/06/2020 (appeal hearing on 14/07/2020)
3,100
789/21
14/12/2020
Aleksandr Yuryevich USTINOV
1988
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Kuleshov
Yekaterinburg
30/11/2018 – pending
First Court of Appeal, Moscow
More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 29 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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

3,700
1191/21
14/12/2020
Estefani ALEJO AVILA
1996
Olga Viktorovna Golub
Suzemka,
Bryansk Region
24/09/2019 – pending
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)

collective detention orders, 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; 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 order of 22/04/2020 - appealed on 13/05/2020 (according to the website of the Moscow City Court) - reviewed on 22/06/2020; detention order of 13/07/2020 - appealed on 16/07/2020 - reviewed on 12/08/2020
3,500

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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
27564/19
20/05/2019
Igor Stepanovich CHICHIN
1966
Mikhail Igorevich Shogin
Petrozavodsk
25/04/2018 to
04/07/2019
Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Karelia Republic
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 day(s)

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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts

1,300
47112/19
24/07/2019
Konstantin Vladislavovich VAGIN
1968
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk
St Petersburg
16/01/2019 – pending
Presnenskiy District Court, Moscow City Court
More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 12 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

3,700
50915/19
10/09/2019
Tatyana Vladimirovna MASLOVA
1970
Anatoliy Anatolyevich Frolov
Lipetsk
28/06/2019 to
06/04/2020
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court
9 month(s) and
10 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 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;
In the case of Bibik and Others (10602/17, [Committee],) on 27 June 2019 the Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the unreasonably lengthy detention of the applicant since her arrest on 29/06/2015 (application no. 2297/18); the applicant remained in custody following the Court’s judgment in her first case. Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant by van from IZ-1 Lipetsk Region to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk on multiple occasions from 02/10/2018 onwards (‘stakan’-type cubicle, 0.36 sq.m., regular roundtrip journeys, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air)
1,300
7714/20
24/01/2020
Sergey Gennadyevich PIMONOV
1975
Mikhail Igorevich Shogin
Petrozavodsk
17/10/2019 – pending
Petrozavodsk Town Court, Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic
More than 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 11 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

2,900
39990/20
10/12/2020
Mariya Viktorovna SKOBELTSEVA
1970
Lev Valeryevich Glukhov
Moscow
18/08/2018 to
15/07/2019

20/04/2020 to
14/04/2021

13/09/2021 – pending
Moscow City Court; Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow
10 month(s) and 28 day(s)

11 month(s) and 26 day(s)

More than 9 month(s) and 15 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, 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

2,900
639/21
02/12/2020
Romans DAVIS
1961
Sergey Sorokin Ivanovich
Moscow
21/01/2020 – pending
Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
7 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
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed review of the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 11/06/2020 (appeal hearing on 14/07/2020)
3,100
789/21
14/12/2020
Aleksandr Yuryevich USTINOV
1988
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Kuleshov
Yekaterinburg
30/11/2018 – pending
First Court of Appeal, Moscow
More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 29 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; 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

3,700
1191/21
14/12/2020
Estefani ALEJO AVILA
1996
Olga Viktorovna Golub
Suzemka,
Bryansk Region
24/09/2019 – pending
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)

collective detention orders, 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; 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 order of 22/04/2020 - appealed on 13/05/2020 (according to the website of the Moscow City Court) - reviewed on 22/06/2020; detention order of 13/07/2020 - appealed on 16/07/2020 - reviewed on 12/08/2020
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.