19134/22;19225/22;19628/22;20044/22;21493/22;21513/22;22343/22;22346/22;23043/22;23588/22;24950/22;25177/22;25370/22;25520/22;25933/22;25953/22;26010/22;26625/22;26913/22;27269/22;29833/22;31646/22;39615/22;45441/22;46905/22;48448/22;49431/22;50094/22;128/23;4812/23;6773/23

FIRST SECTION CASE OF NAUMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 19134/22 and 30 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 April 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Naumenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Lətif Hüseynov, President,  Ivana Jelić,  Erik Wennerström, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2024, 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 JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 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). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 8.  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). 9.  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. 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  Some 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, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 146‑155, 30 July 2009, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018, regarding unlawful detention; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect. 13.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.  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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms; Holds (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 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov  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]     19134/22 17/03/2022 Andrey Andreyevich NAUMENKO Mazurov Sergey Anatolyevich Zheleznogorsk 20/12/2020 to 08/02/2022 Zheleznogorsk Town Court of Kursk Region, Kursk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant complains about placement in a metal cage during the hearings on his pre-trial detention between 23/12/2020 and 07/10/2021 9,750     19225/22 17/03/2022 Gadzhiverdi Nazim Olgy GABIBOV Lening Marina Aleksandrovna Yurga 03/12/2014 to 03/04/2019     29/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo, Yurga Town Court of the Kemerovo Region, Kemerovo Regional Court, Eighth Cassation Court 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s)     1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Yurga Town Court of the Kemerovo Region on 21/10/2021, appeal decision by the Kemerovo Regional Court on 01/12/2021;   Detention order by the Yurga Town Court of the Kemerovo Region on 22/12/2021, appeal decision by the Kemerovo Regional Court on 03/02/2022 5,500     19628/22 06/03/2022 Boris Borisovich NIKITIN Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna Moscow 22/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court, Third Appellate Court, Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 26 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   2,200     20044/22 06/04/2022 Oksana Vasilyevna DUDKINA     01/12/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court, Third Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during the hearings in the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don and the Rostov Regional Court since 01/11/2021 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022 9,750     21493/22 21/03/2022 Ilnaz Fanisovich MUKHAMETOV     29/10/2018 to 11/10/2021 Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of Tatarstan, Military Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 13 day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 09/03/2021 - 03/12/2021, 0.25-0.33 sq. m. of personal space, the applicant transported on numerous occasions, duration of transport of 4-6 hours on each occasion, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease 3,900     21513/22 13/04/2022 Sergey Anatolyevich KIRICHENKO Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog 22/11/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 9 month(s) and 26 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 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - unrecorded detention between 22/11/2021 and 23/11/2021,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow on 24/11/2021, appeal lodged on 25/11/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 20/01/2022;   Detention order by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow on 15/12/2021, appeal lodged on 17/12/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 25/01/2022;   Detention order by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow on 26/01/2022, appeal lodged on 29/01/2022, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 03/03/2022         3,900     22343/22 23/03/2022 Aleksey Dmitriyevich MAKUNIN Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk 30/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court, Sosnovskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage between 02/05/2021 and 07/02/2022, Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk (in person) and Chelyabinsk Regional Court through video-link at SIZO-1, Chelyabinsk Region,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk on 04/09/2021, appeal decision by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 04/10/2021;   Detention order by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk on 07/12/2021, appeal decision by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 19/01/2022;   Detention order by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk on 13/01/2022, appeal decision by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 09/02/2022   9,750     22346/22 21/03/2022 Ruslan Fanisovich NURTDINOV     29/10/2018 to 11/10/2021 Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Tsentralnyy Circuit Military Court, Appellate Military Court, Fourth Appellate Court, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 13 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 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, train; 09/03/2021 - 03/12/2021; personal space: 0.25 sq. m, 0.33 sq. m, 0.9 sq. m; overcrowding, lack of fresh air, applicant transported on numerous occasions, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 3,900     23043/22 12/04/2022 Ruslan Yuryevich YAKOVENKO     16/04/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad, Zelenogradskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region, Kaliningrad Regional Court, First Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 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 examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - use of metal cage in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad, Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, Zelenogradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad Region, Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg (video link from SIZO-3 Kaliningrad Region), Kaliningrad Regional Court (including video link from SIZO-3 Kaliningrad Region), First Appeal Court (video link from SIZO-3 Kaliningrad Region); 16/04/2020 - ongoing possibly as of 16/09/2022,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Kaliningrad Regional Court on 08/10/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 02/11/2021;   Detention order by the Kaliningrad Regional Court on 01/11/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 02/12/2021 9,750   23588/22 21/03/2022 Andrey Fedorovich MAYER Chesnokov Vladimir Yevgenyevich Rostov-on-Don 25/12/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court, Third Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial   1,900   24950/22 24/04/2022 Nikita Romanovich KRESHCHUK Olgerdt Oksana Gennadyevna Moscow 16/09/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 1 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,100   25177/22 19/03/2022 Vladislav Robertovich AN     06/10/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kondopoga Town Court of Karelia, Supreme Court of Karelia 11 month(s) and 11 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice   1,000   25370/22 25/04/2022 Oleg Nikolayevich SEREBRENNIKOV Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow 14/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 3 day(s)   collective detention orders; 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   2,300   25520/22 06/05/2022 Vyacheslav Nikolayevich VISHNEVSKIY Zharinov Kirill Moscow 24/03/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo, Kemerovo Regional Court 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s)   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; 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 examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo on 16/12/2021, appeal lodged on 19/12/2021, appeal decision by the Kemerovo Regional Court on 14/01/2022;   detention order by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo on 22/03/2022, appeal lodged on 24/03/2022, appeal decision by the Kemerovo Regional Court on 14/04/2022 3,100   25933/22 18/04/2022 Svetlana Sergeyevna SUS     14/05/2020 to 28/02/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 15 day(s)   collective detention orders; 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 and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   2,000   25953/22 22/04/2022 Umarali Rakhmatulloyevich TASHRIPOV Pavlova Natalya Valeryevna Zelenogorsk 09/01/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s)   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, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 15/10/2021, appeal lodged on 20/10/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 23/11/2021;   Detention order by the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 10/11/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 28/12/2021;   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and Article 5 § 4 3,400   26010/22 29/04/2022 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich GORBACHEV Sabitov Timur Ravilevich Moscow 26/10/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 10 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; 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   1,000   26625/22 07/05/2022 Ruslan Shavkatovich SHAMSUNOV     18/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Nizhnekamsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30 day(s)   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   2,100   26913/22 18/05/2022 Viktor Nikolayevich ZUBAREV Savin Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Stavropol 21/10/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court 10 month(s) and 27 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detentionorder by the Leninsky District Court of Stavropol on 22/10/2021, appeal lodged on 25/10/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/11/2021;   Detention order by the Leninsky District Court of Stavropol on 15/12/2021, appeal lodged on 17/12/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 13/01/2022 1,300   27269/22 24/04/2022 Nikolay Vladimirovich PITERKIN     27/05/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)   persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Smolninskiy District Court on 27/10/2021, appeal lodged on 01/11/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 08/12/2021; 2,900   29833/22 14/05/2022 Leonid Aleksandrovich MELIKHOV Pavlov Roman Dmitriyevich Moscow 04/08/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Odintsovskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 13 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 1,200   31646/22 01/06/2022 Eldar Ali Ogly ALIYEV     27/03/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 21 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Zhelezhnodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk between 28/03/2021 and 23/08/2022   9,750   39615/22 25/07/2022 Maksim Viktorovich RUSAKOV Fedotova Yuliya Yevgenyevna Yekaterinburg 26/03/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 5 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow on 22/02/2022, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 13/04/2022 4,100   45441/22 19/08/2022 Arsen Garikovich NERSISYAN Toropov Artem Yuryevich Moscow 19/01/2022 to 09/08/2022 Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 6 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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 1,000   46905/22 05/09/2022 Andrey Aleksandrovich DENISOV Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk 12/05/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court, Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - multiple instances of placement in a metal cage; 13/05/2021 - 22/07/2022, Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court;   Art. 5 (4) - lack of speediness in review of detention orders:   Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, 22/04/2022 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022;   Kurchatovskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, 22/07/2022 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 9,750   48448/22 04/10/2022 Vitaliy Vitalyevich KOLTSOV Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 03/05/2022 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 month(s) and 14 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,000   49431/22 15/09/2022 Maksim Anatolyevich LAVRENTYEV     07/08/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Central District Court of Kemerovo; Kemerovo Regional Court 2 year(s) and 1 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; collective detention orders         2,200   50094/22 29/09/2022 Aleksey Igorevich KURINOV Timchenko Denis Aleksandrovich Moscow 29/01/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 19 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   1,800   128/23 20/11/2022 Maksim Dmitriyevich AN Fedotova Yuliya Yevgenyevna St Petersburg 17/11/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 10 month(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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 re8offending, 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:   Detention order by the Moscow City Court, 12/08/2022, appeal lodged on 15/08/2022, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 13/09/2022 2,500   4812/23 15/01/2023 Aleksey Sergeyevich YANOCHKIN Polyakova Veronika Valeryevna Moscow 16/09/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 1 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; 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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts   1,100   6773/23 26/01/2023 Valeriy Nikolayevich GOLUBKIN Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow 12/04/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Lefortovo District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s)   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; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   1,600     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.