2282/21;14287/21;30020/21;31358/21;37778/21;55567/21;2999/22;3482/22;3618/22;3732/22;4015/22;4040/22;4076/22;4131/22;4787/22;4921/22;5680/22;5768/22;5990/22;6099/22;6881/22;7422/22;8450/22;8961/22;10983/22

FIRST SECTION CASE OF SHAYDULLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2282/21 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shaydullin 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 16 May 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; Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Khodokovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, paras. 230-233, 31 May 2011, regarding impossibility to have a private consultation with counsel via a video-link during a court hearing; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018 and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12,18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits in detention facilities and lack of effective remedies; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Kalinichenko v. Russia, no. 40834/11, §§ 75-78, 9 July 2019, concerning unlawful pre-trial detention. 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; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms under Article 13 of the Convention; 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 (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 June 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]     2282/21 04/12/2020 Rinat Kurbangaliyevich SHAYDULLIN Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi 21/06/2018 to 14/08/2020 Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 25 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   2,200     14287/21 18/02/2021 Sergey Fedorovich RUBEZHNOY Koshev Vladimir Vladimirovich Stavropol 26/06/2018 - 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, Third Appellate Court 4 year(s) and 2 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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms -Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol; between 14/08/2020 and 27/10/2020; Stavropol Regional Court, 22/01/2021,   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Stavropol, 16/06/2018 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of video surveillance 9,750     30020/21 11/06/2021 Magomed Gadzhiyevich MAGOMEDOV Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich Moscow 30/03/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appeal Court 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18 day(s)   collective detention orders; 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:   Detention order by the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, of 29/04/2021, appeal lodged on 04/05/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 16/07/2021 5,100     31358/21 16/05/2021 Aleksandr Alekseyevich SAMOYLOV Suslova Irina Aleksandrovna Vyborg 02/04/2018 to 13/03/2019   15/07/2019 to 30/03/2021 Leningrad Regional Court,   Priozyorsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region 11 month(s) and 12 day(s)   1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 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     Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the hearings in the Priozerskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region since 04/04/2018 - 30/03/2021 9,750     37778/21 14/07/2021 (4 applicants) Pavel Aleksandrovich CHEPURKIN   Aleksey Leonidovich DOROSHENKO     Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KAGANOVSKIY   Andrey Valerianovich SHISHKOV   Motchenko Lina Fedorovna Nevinnomyssk 15/05/2014 to 20/01/2021     19/05/2014 to 20/01/2021       08/12/2014 to 20/01/2021     05/02/2015 to 20/01/2021 Nevinnomyssk Town Court of Stavropol Region; Stavropol Regional Court 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s)   6 year(s), 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)     6 year(s), 1 month(s) and 14 day(s)   5 year(s), 11 month(s) and 16 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   5,000, to each of the applicants             55567/21 30/10/2021 Maksim Viktorovich TARKHANOV     17/02/2021 - 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)   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; 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 - Moscow City Court, 07/06/2021; the applicant’s placement in a metal cage and glass cabin during the hearings before the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow and the Moscow City Court on multiple occasions in the period from 18/02/2021 to 13/07/2022,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, on 16/04/2021, appeal decision of the Moscow City Court on 07/06/2021;   Detention order of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, on 15/07/2021, appeal lodged on 18/07/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 01/09/2021,     Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention,   Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - lack of family visits in a temporary detention facility (SIZO) where the applicant has been detained since February 2021,   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits               9,750     2999/22 15/12/2021 Ruslan Mikhaylovich ARASHUKOV Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow 30/01/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Cherkessk Town Court of Karachay-Cherkessia Republic; Supreme Court of Karachay-Cherkessia Republic, Peobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to 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   3,800     3482/22 15/12/2021 Viktor Valeryevich BELEVTSOV Nyamina Olga Valentovna Moskva 29/09/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022   Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, First Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 13/10/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 24/11/2021 4,500     3618/22 13/12/2021 Roman Aleksandrovich MALKOV Antonova Yekaterina Vladimirovna Leningrad 22/01/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Pushkinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 2 year(s) and 7 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 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:   Detention order by the Pushkinskiy District Court on 17/05/2021, appeal lodged on 26/05/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 27/07/2021;   Detention order by the Pushkinskiy District Court on 28/07/2021, appeal lodged on 02/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 12/10/2021;   Detention order by the Kolpinskiy District Court on 11/08/2021, appeal lodged on 16/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 22/09/2021   3,300   3732/22 27/12/2021 Eduard Mullanurovich MUKHAMETZYANOV     13/08/2018 to 27/08/2020     11/08/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 2 year(s) and 15 day(s)     1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   3,200   4015/22 16/12/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich OVECHKIN     12/12/2019 - 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, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 5 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 07/02/2020 - 05/10/2021,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 05/10/2021, appeal lodged on 08/10/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 11/11/2021;    Detention order by the Sverdlovskiy District Court on 29/12/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 01/02/2022 9,750   4040/22 27/12/2021 Ivan Sergeyevich SAMOKHVALOV Dorzhizhapova Irina Vladimirovna Chita 19/07/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalye Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)   collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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   3,200   4076/22 29/12/2021 Maksim Vitalyevich TISHCHENKO     22/09/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26 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; 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 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 28/06/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on; 21/07/2021   Detention order by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 02/09/2021, appeal decision by the Fourth Appellate Court on 22/09/2021 4,500   4131/22 27/12/2021 Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich YEVSIKOV     24/04/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 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   4,500   4787/22 29/12/2021 Vyacheslav Olegovich VYSOTSKIY Logvinov Yuriy Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don 20/11/2020 - 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, Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Rostov Regional Court 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 28 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, on 10/11/2021, appeal lodged on 13/11/2021, appeal decision by the Rostov Regional Court on 09/12/2021 2,500   4921/22 15/12/2021 Grigoriy Nikolayevich VARYGIN Gurenko Vitaliy Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk 30/01/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Pirovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Lesosibirskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoayrsk Regional Court 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to 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. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the hearings extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the Pirovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, the Lesosibirskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, from 04/03/2019 and possibly ongoing as of 16/09/2022 9,750   5680/22 24/12/2021 Tatyana Alekseyevna ZORINA     20/07/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s)   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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   2,200   5768/22 01/12/2021 Yuriy Yuryevich KONOPLEV     08/08/2019 to 13/08/2021 Kozulskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 6 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms during the court hearings in Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 06/11/2019 - 09/06/2021 9,750   5990/22 10/01/2022 Ruslan Nikolayevich MALAYDAKH     22/10/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 1 year(s) and 10 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 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   2,100   6099/22 08/01/2022 Dmitriy Vladimirovich NOVIKOV Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol 07/06/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Novorossiysk, Stavropol Regional Court 1 year(s) and 3 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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placed into a metal cage during the court hearing on 23/08/2021   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of Novorossiysk, on 07/06/2021, appeal lodged on 10/06/2021, appeal decision by the Stavropol Regional Court on 23/08/2021 9,750   6881/22 19/01/2022 Dmitriy Vladimirovich CHERTOK Nechiporenko Natalya Aleksandrovna Moscow 08/07/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court, Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, the First Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 9 day(s)   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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - from the moment the applicant was extradited to Russia from Hungary on 08/07/2021 and until 15/10/2021 when the Moscow City Court adopted its decision on pre-trial detention, he was in pre-trial detention without proper order (see Kalinichenko v. Russia, no. 40834/11, paras. 75-78, 9 July 2019),   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention:   Detention order by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow on 06/09/2021, appeal lodged on 08/09/2021, appeal decision by the Moscow City Court on 07/10/2021;   Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 15/10/2021, appeal lodged on 18/10/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 18/11/2021;   Detention order by the Moscow City Court on 17/11/2021, appeal lodged on 18/11/2021, appeal decision by the First Appellate Court on 14/12/2021 3,900   7422/22 22/01/2022 Aleksandr Pavlovich KUZIN     05/08/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha Republic, Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic 2 year(s) and 1 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; 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 Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during court hearings in Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha Republic 02/10/2020-22/12/2021; Video link from SIZO‑1 Sakha Republic 23/10/2020 - 22/10/2021,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 07/08/2020-17/01/2022 transport by van, detention in a transit cell, 0.2 sq. m per person, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking,   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - Impossibility to have a private consultation with counsel via a video-link during the appellate hearing at the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic on 22/10/2021 (see Khodokovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011) 9,750   8450/22 23/01/2022 Dmitriy Viktorovich KULAGA     02/04/2014 to 24/12/2020     22/06/2021 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Divnogorskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)   1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 26 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; 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     5,000   8961/22 28/12/2021 Eldar Valeryevich GARIPOV Skachko Igor Yuryevich St Petersburg 11/02/2021 to 18/02/2022 Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 1 year(s) and 8 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 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court on 02/06/2021, appeal lodged on 07/06/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 01/07/2021;   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 30/08/2021, appeal lodged on 02/09/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 21/10/2021;   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 28/06/2021, appeal lodged on 29/06/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 22/07/2021;   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 30/07/2021, appeal lodged on 02/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 19/08/2021;   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, on 10/08/2021, appeal lodged on 17/08/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 16/09/2021;   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 30/08/2021, appeal lodged on 02/09/2021, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 21/10/2021;   Detention order by the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 10/11/2021, appeal lodged on 15/11/2021, appeal proceedings were pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court                     1,400   10983/22 02/02/2022 Danis Rustemovich AKHMADEYEV     23/06/2020 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, Fourth Appellate Court 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 25 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; 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   2,300     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.