Главная Поиск Карта сайта
Поиск по сайту
Авторизация
Логин:
Пароль:
Забыли свой пароль?
Легализация
petition.jpg

Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)

Страницы: Пред. 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38
Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
 
КОМПЕНСАЦИИ ЕСПЧ ЗА НЕОБОСНОВАННЫЕ СТРАЖИ

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

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]

9209/11

30/11/2010

Sergey Aleksandrovich MALYSHEV

1979

01/07/2010 to

13/04/2011

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Moscow,

Moscow City Court

9 month(s) and 13 day(s)

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 authorised by the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow on 02/07/2010. The detention order was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 06/09/2010 (66 days).

1,700

23736/17

06/03/2017

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich TYSHKO

1972

28/10/2015 to

16/03/2016

02/08/2016 to

10/05/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk,

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

4 month(s) and 18 day(s)

9 month(s) and 9 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.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 14/11/2016 examined and upheld on appeal on 17/01/2017

2,000

33054/17

12/04/2017

Rustem Valeriyanovich KHAMZIN

1977

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa,

Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic,

Privolzhskiy Military District Court

3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)

Collective detention orders.

The applicant’s detention pending the examination of the case file lasted for almost a year. The Government did not argue that the prolonged period of the applicant’s examination of the case file in his case was due to any objective reasons (such as the volume of the case file). Neither did the domestic courts examine whether there had been any delays attributable to the investigating authorities. There were no attempts on the part of the domestic authorities to speed up the applicant’s examination of the case file by making new arrangements. Moreover, the protracted length of that examination process evidently benefited the investigating authorities, who completed their investigation in the meantime. The trial of the applicant’s case lasted for almost a year. Although there could have existed relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s detention at some stages of the proceedings, the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and specific justification for the continued application of the measure of restraint, coupled with the lack of diligence on their part.

4,700

37006/17

12/05/2017

Aleksandr Valeryevich KORNEV

1987

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa,

Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic,

Privolzhskiy Military District Court

3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)

Collective detention orders.

The applicant’s detention pending the examination of the case file lasted for almost a year. The Government did not argue that the prolonged period of the applicant’s examination of the case file in his case was due to any objective reasons (such as the volume of the case file). Neither did the domestic courts examine whether there had been any delays attributable to the investigating authorities. There were no attempts on the part of the domestic authorities to speed up the applicant’s examination of the case file by making new arrangements. Moreover, the protracted length of that examination process evidently benefited the investigating authorities, who completed their investigation in the meantime. The trial of the applicant’s case lasted for almost a year. Although there could have existed relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s detention at some stages of the proceedings, the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and specific justification for the continued application of the measure of restraint, coupled with the lack of diligence on their part.

4,700

38207/17

04/05/2017

Artem Mikhaylovich ZYULIN

1981

02/12/2014 to

05/05/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 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.

3,400

62452/17

07/08/2017

Timur Nikolayevich MALYGIN

1996

12/04/2015 to

03/10/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 22 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.

3,400

65217/17

23/08/2017

Givi Borisovich DZHAGMAIDZE

1979

17/03/2017

to

20/11/2019

Georgiyevsk Town Court;

Stavropol Regional Court

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)

As the case progressed, 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,800

69128/17

21/08/2017

Denis Sergeyevich KHOROBRYKH

1987

22/01/2015 to

03/10/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 12day(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.

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan during the criminal proceedings against the applicant,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the complaint about the placement in a metal cage

9,750

24901/18

24/04/2018

Rafis Ravilevich NASYBULLIN

1980

22/11/2016 to

19/02/2019

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 29 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; “white-collar” crime; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - The applicant was not provided with legal assistance at the appellate hearing against the detention order on 02/03/2018 (Svipsta v. Latvia no. 66820/01, 9 March 2006, § 129)

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]

51122/07

05/11/2007

Aleksandr Voldemarovich PEYET

1969

05/07/2006 to

30/07/2007

Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver,

Tver Regional Court

1 year(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 detention - detention in the absence of a decision authorising it for 19 days (05- 24/07/2017) (Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-151, ECHR 2005‑X (extracts));

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of the Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver of 30/05/2007 was upheld on appeal by the Tver Regional Court on 19/07/2007 (1 month 19 days)

3,900

1649/15

27/12/2014

Vladimir Antonovich ROZHIN

1996

24/03/2014 to

05/05/2015

Dorogoilovskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 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.

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in the hearings before the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow (conviction on 05/05/2015)

9,750

55279/15

12/10/2015

Ruslan Sergeyevich PYLAYEV

1976

08/10/2014 to

23/05/2016

Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok,

Primorye Regional Court,

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 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.

2,300

28373/17

22/03/2017

Andrey Yuryevich MAKAROV

1979

Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna

Moscow

16/07/2015 to

29/05/2017

Vologda Town Court;

Vologda Regional Court

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 14 day(s)

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

In the decision of 17/11/2016 the Court examined the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the period of his detention from 31/07/2012 to 16/07/2015. The application (no.40586/15) was struck out of the Court’s list of cases on the basis of Article 39 of the Convention, because the Government offered a unilateral declaration acknowledging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention until 16/07/2015. The declaration was accepted by the applicant.

2,700

41745/17

31/07/2017

Yuriy Vladimirovich SHAGAYKO

1982

18/12/2015 to

21/03/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 4 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.

1,800

66966/17

26/08/2017

Viktor Aleksandrovich VASILYEV

1958

30/08/2014 to

23/03/2018

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 24 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; as the case progressed, 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.

4,800

69404/17

30/08/2017

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KNYAZEV

1994

06/07/2015 to

03/10/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 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.

3,000

21542/19

04/04/2019

Aleksey Vyacheslavovich SUSHKOV

1977

Znamenshchikov Yevgeniy Vladimirovich

Lipetsk

31/08/2018 to

19/07/2019

Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk;

Lipetsk Regional Court

10 month(s) and 20 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; “white-collar” crime;

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.

1,300

22058/19

11/04/2019

Viktor Vadimovich FEDOSEYEV

1993

Yeliseyev Oleg Viktorovich

Moscow

09/09/2018

pending

Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against detention order of 11/09/2018 was examined only on 26/11/2018

3,700

28846/19

07/05/2019

Igor Nikolayevich SHVETS

1965

Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich

Moscow

13/04/2018

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 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; “white-collar” crime

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - with regard to placement in a metal cage during hearings,

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage during numerous hearings in the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; starting on 13/04/2018; proceedings are still pending

9,750

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Date 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]

10179/05

21/02/2005

Aleksandr Vitalyevich

DIKIN

02/02/1972

Dikin Denis Mikhaylovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

18/06/2004 to

04/08/2006

Bogorodsk Town Court; Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod;

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

2 year(s)

and

1 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.

10,750

(under the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government)

2,900

(under the present judgment)

28828/17

30/03/2017

Artur

Raulevich SALIMOV

05/09/1986

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa;

the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s) and

27 day(s)

Collective detention orders;

the applicant’s detention pending the examination of the case file lasted for almost a year. The Government did not argue that the prolonged period of the applicant’s examination of the case file in his case was due to any objective reasons (such as the volume of the case file). Neither did the domestic courts examine whether there had been any delays attributable to the investigating authorities. There were no attempts on the part of the domestic authorities to speed up the applicant’s examination of the case file by making new arrangements. Moreover, the protracted length of that examination process evidently benefited the investigating authorities, who completed their investigation in the meantime. The trial of the applicant’s case lasted for almost a year. Although there could have existed relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s detention at some stages of the proceedings, the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and specific justification for the continued application of the measure of restraint, coupled with the lack of diligence on their part.

4,700

28882/17

29/03/2017

Danis Miratovich FAYZRAKHMANOV

04/09/1988

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa;

the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s) and

27 day(s)

Collective detention orders; the applicant in the present case was a co-defendant in the case of Mr Salimov (see application no. 28828/17 above). The findings of the Court in Mr Salimov’s case as regards specific defects are fully applicable to the present case.

4,700

29901/17

27/03/2017

Rinat Ranifovich NURLYGAYANOV

03/01/1991

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa;

the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s) and

27 day(s)

Collective detention orders;

the applicant in the present case was a co-defendant in the case of Mr Salimov (see application no. 28828/17 above). The findings of the Court in Mr Salimov’s case as regards specific defects are fully applicable to the present case.

4,700

18170/18

09/04/2018

Magomedkamil Magomedzapirovich[2] MANSUROV

05/05/1987

Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

15/02/2018 to

30/03/2020

Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

2 year(s)

and

1 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.

500

(under the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government)

3,200

(under the present judgment)

38349/18

06/08/2018

Maksim Mikhaylovich BATISHCHEV

30/07/1989

Kopteyeva Anastasiya Vladimirovna

Chita

12/10/2016 to

21/08/2018

Mogochinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region; Zabaykalskiy Regional Court

1 year(s)

and 10 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

2,700

39183/18

15/08/2018

Oksana Viktorovna KRAVCHENKO

28/01/1974

Bulysov Roman Yevgenyevich

Moscow

17/02/2016 to

10/07/2019

Basmanniy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court; Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow; Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow; appeal: Moscow City Court

3 year(s)

and

4 month(s) and

24 day(s)

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;

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; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.

4,600

42639/18

28/08/2018

Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich STASHCHENKO

29/03/1995

Uporov Igor Nikolayevich

Yekaterinburg

14/03/2016 to

27/11/2018

Severouralsk Town Court; Nizhnetagilskiy Garrison Court; Sverdlovsk Regional Court; Uralskiy Military District Court

2 year(s)

and

8 month(s) and

14 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,800

46290/18

27/08/2018

Ivan

Viktorovich BUFTYAK

18/08/1988

20/08/2014 to

02/04/2020

Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region; Noginsk Town Court;

Moscow Regional Court

5 year(s)

and

7 month(s) and

14 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; collective detention orders.

6,500

46746/18

04/02/2019

Andrey Sergeyevich GOBUZOV

16/06/1981

17/01/2018 to

06/05/2019

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

1 year(s)

and

3 month(s) and

20 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk at a number of hearings from 27/04/2018 to 31/10/2018.

9,750

49702/18

09/10/2018

Emin

Orudzhali ogly GAMIDOV

07/10/1985

23/01/2018 to

24/12/2019

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

2 year(s)

and

2 month(s) and

11 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

2,600

51467/18

30/10/2018

Olga

Mikhaylovna FROLOVA

30/05/1980

Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

16/10/2016

To

20/06/2019

Tambov Regional Court

More than 3 year(s)

and

7 month(s) and

18 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly as the case progressed; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts on charges of fraud (commercial activity); failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal review of Tambov Regional Court on 10/08/2018 (66 days after the extension order of 19/06/2018); extension order of 21/09/2018 was examined on 31/10/2018 (40 days); extension order of 16/11/2018 was examined on 26/12/2018 (40 days); extension order of 01/11/2018 was examined on 11/12/2018 (40 days).

4,900

51693/18

23/10/2018

Vladimir Vladimirovich SOBOLEV

30/06/1975

09/10/2013

to

18/07/2017

05/06/2018 to

13/12/2018

Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

3 year(s)

and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)

6 month(s) and

9 day(s)

Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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.

5,700

52182/18

25/10/2018

Vasiliy

Sergeyevich USTINOV

25/04/1984

Aleksandrova Lyudmila Aleksandrovna

Krasnodar

09/06/2017 to

19/03/2020

Prikubansky District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court

2 year(s)

and

9 month(s) and

11 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; white-collar crime; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

3,900

52473/18

25/10/2018

Yelena

Valentinovna SELIVERSTOVA

02/01/1971

08/10/2014 to

04/09/2018

Samarskiy District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court

3 year(s)

and 10 month(s) and

28 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly as the case progressed; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

5,300

53026/18

02/11/2018

Sergey Aleksandrovich SHAKHMAN

29/08/1973

Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich

Moscow

04/10/2016 to

11/09/2018

Moscow City Court

1 year(s)

and 11 month(s) and

8 day(s)

Collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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. The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention starting on 04/10/2016 (see Pavlov and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 24715/16 and 7 others, 11 January 2018). The applicant, nevertheless, stayed in pre-trial detention after the Court’s judgment of 11/01/2018 until the investigator’s decision of 11/09/2018 to release him.

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation in conjunction with Article 5 (1) and Article 5 (4) of the Convention – in particular, lack of compensation for unlawful arrest or detention in relation to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and to a delay in examination of an appeal against an extension order (see Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 148-155, 30 July 2009);

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention- the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Savelovksiy District Court of Moscow of 21/06/2018 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 30/07/2018 (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

1,400

58185/18

07/12/2018

Grigoriy

Ulyanovich PIRUMOV

09/06/1962

Zykov Andrey Leonidovich

Moscow

17/05/2018

to

12/08/2019

Basmanniy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s)

and

17 day(s)

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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.

1,700

59010/18

30/11/2018

Andrey Valentinovich UTKIN

23/11/1966

Polozov Kirill Borisovich

Moscow

05/12/2017 to

16/08/2019

Leninskiy Distrcit Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court

1 year(s)

and

8 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 in relation to a charge for a non-violent crime.

2,500

1107/19

13/12/2018

Aleksandr

Petrovich DOLMATOV

12/05/1977

Aksenova Yuliya Vladimirovna

Volgograd

14/05/2015 to

25/07/2018

Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

3 year(s)

and

2 month(s) and

12 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 of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

4,300

1922/19

12/12/2018

Denis Bakhodirzhonovich GULAMOV

21/02/1986

Urychev Aleksandr Vitalyevich

Chelyabinsk

15/06/2017 to

13/04/2020

Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic; Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk; Novosibirsk Regional Court; Chelyabinsk Regional Court

2 year(s)

and

9 month(s) and

18 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders.

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms during the hearings in Novosibirsk Regional Court and Tsentralniy District Court of Novosibirsk

9,750

2404/19

13/12/2018

Vladimir Vladimirovich SURKOV

28/04/1983

Aksenova Yuliya Vladimirovna

Volgograd

21/05/2015 to

25/07/2018

Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

3 year(s)

and

2 month(s) and

5 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

4,300

4780/19

10/01/2019

Pavel Nikolayevich PETROV

13/07/1985

Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich

Astrakhan

20/04/2018

to

17/07/2019

Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan; Volodarskiy District Court of Astrakhan Region; Astrakhan Regional Court

More than 2 year(s)

and

1 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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; collective detention orders.

1,700

4781/19

10/12/2018

Yuliya Anatolyevna VERPEKINA

30/11/1986

21/02/2018 pending

Leninsky District Court of the Stavropol Region; the Stavropol Regional Court

2 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; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.

3,100

4816/19

14/12/2018

Nataliya Igorevna KOZHANOVA

30/08/1955

Vladimirov Andrey Vladimirovich

Yoshkar-Ola

13/04/2017

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than 3 year(s)

and

1 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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.

4,200

5441/19

04/01/2019

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich NIKOLAYENKO

19/02/1980

Solovyev Yuriy Germanovich

St Petersburg

30/05/2018 pending

St Petersburg City Court; Kuybyshevsky District Court of St Petersburg

1 year(s)

and 10 month(s) and

3 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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – 30 days for judicial review of the detention order of 01/06/2018, appealed on 04/06/2018, which was examined by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/07/2018.

3,500

6416/19

10/01/2019

Ruslan Makhmudovich GADZHIYEV

27/12/1985

Klyubin Sergey Nikolayevich

Velikiy Novgorod

19/05/2018 to

13/03/2019

Novgorod District Court of the Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court

9 month(s) and

23 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.

1,300

6731/19

27/12/2018

Yuriy Aleksandrovich LOSKUTOV

16/11/1989

10/10/2017

pending

Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg; Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg;

St Petersburg City Court

More than 2 year(s)

and

7 month(s) and

24 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,600

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]

25742/17

15/03/2017

Andrey Rashitovich IKRAMOV

1973

Kulapov Vitaliy Viktorovich

Moscow

03/03/2015 to

06/02/2018

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 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;

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

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. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - complaint about detention order of 16/08/2016 was dealt with by the appellate court on 27/09/2016; complaint about detention order of 18/10/2016 was dealt with by the appellate court on 08/12/2016.

4,400

28311/17

05/04/2017

Yuriy Baronovich KUDZAGOV

1977

11/04/2012 to

21/11/2016

Mytishchi Town Court,

Moscow Regional Court

4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 11 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;

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

6,200

28726/17

07/03/2017

Ramil Rafikovich ZALYAYEV

1966

13/01/2014 to

09/06/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 28 day(s)

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

4,600

31080/17

21/03/2017

Ilyas Miskhatovich SABIRZYANOV

1969

26/01/2013 to

18/10/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,

Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan

4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(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.

6,400

7318/18

26/01/2018

Nikita Alekseyevich YASHKIN

1981

Shein Yevgeniy Valentinovich

St Petersburg

25/10/2014 to

19/09/2018

St Petersburg City Court

3 year(s) and 10 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 examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

5,300

4715/19

13/05/2019

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich FRIDRIKH

1993

11/10/2018 to

27/05/2019

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

7 month(s) and 17 day(s)

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 - appeal against detention order of 25/12/2018 was examined only on 22/01/2019;

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - lack of effective remedy against excessive length of detention and against lack of speediness of review of detention;

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in metal cages during hearings in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk from 12/10/2018 to 27/05/2019.

9,750

13050/19

03/06/2019

Vladimir Leonidovich TORSHIN

1963

31/05/2017 to

17/05/2019

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 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 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 - placement of the applicant on a number of occasions in a metal cage in the court room of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; leading to the conviction on 17/05/2019;

Art. 13 lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings.

9,750

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]

4688/19

02/10/2019

Sergey Ivanovich SOKOLOV

1985

15/02/2018 to

05/02/2020

Berezovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 22 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court of 21/08/2019, appeal decision of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court of 17/09/2019 (25 days).

2,500

13041/19

16/07/2019

Nikolay Fedorovich ILYINSKIY

1990

24/11/2017 to

01/04/2019

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 day(s)

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport since 30/11/2017 on numerous occasions between detention facilities and the courthouse; no/ restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, no/ restricted access to toilet.

2,500

41276/19

27/09/2019

Aleksey Vladimirovich NEPOMNYASHCHIKH

1994

19/02/2018 to

02/12/2019

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and 9 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;

reliance predominantly on the seriousness of the charges and complexity of the case.

2,000

57827/19

28/10/2019

Nasrulla Bagautdinovich MAGOMEDOV

1992

Rokotyanskaya Tatyana Ivanovna

Volgograd

24/04/2019

pending

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

More than

1 year(s) and 10 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 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

58834/19

22/10/2019

Magomed-Salyakh Lechiyevich

BIGAYEV

1971

Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich

Moscow

28/03/2019 to

02/02/2021

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 10 month(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; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

2,000

58873/19

31/10/2019

Vladimir Sergeyevich CHERNIKOV

1982

Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich

Voronezh

10/09/2018

pending

Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh; Voronezh Regional Court

More than

2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 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.

2,700

59226/19

22/10/2019

Ayzat Rafikovich KALIMULLIN

1974

25/10/2016 to

02/12/2019

Naberezhnyy Chelny Town Court; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,200

62758/19

21/11/2019

Andrey Pavlovich BELENIN

1980

Dvornikov Anton Nikolayevich

Moscow

31/01/2019 to

14/10/2020

Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow

1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

1,900

64244/19

25/11/2019

Gera Yuryevna GUZHVA

1995

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

27/11/2017 to

03/06/2020

Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region, Rostov Regional Court; Third Appellate Court

2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 8 day(s)

Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.

2,700

 

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Period of detention

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

Length of detention

Specific defects

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]

21552/19

08/04/2019

Vasiliy Vyacheslavovich DVIRNIK

1990

28/10/2015 to

06/10/2019

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic

3 year(s) and

11 month(s) and

9 day(s)

Collective detention orders; 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

5,200

46737/19

17/07/2019

Aleksandr Viktorovich GERASIMOV

1984

09/11/2014

pending

Severodvinsk Town Court;

Arkhangelsk Regional Court

More than 5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 14 day(s)

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;

collective detention orders; as the case progressed:

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.

6,500

59500/19

06/11/2019

Aleksandr Valeriyevich SLIVETS

1984

28/05/2019

pending

Syktyvkar Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

More than 1 year(s) and 4 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

2,000

(awarded by the Court)

and 500

(under the friendly settlement agreement)

4413/20

25/12/2019

Yuriy Yuryevich POLITOV

1966

15/10/2017 to

22/07/2020

Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s)

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;

collective detention orders; as the case progressed: 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.

3,900

 

Комитет Министров Европы 25.02.2022 принял решение лишить Российскую Федерацию права на представительство в Комитете министров и в Парламентской ассамблее с немедленным вступлением в силу. Российская Федерация остается членом Совета Европы и участником соответствующих конвенций Совета Европы, включая Европейскую конвенцию о правах человека.

Судья, избранный в Европейский суд по правам человека от Российской Федерации, также остается членом Суда, и жалобы, поданные против Российской Федерации, будут по-прежнему рассматриваться Судом и принимать решения. Приостановление — это не окончательная мера, а временная, оставляющая открытыми каналы связи."

Источник

Пока так, дальнейшее зависит..

 
Власти РФ уведомили  Генсека  Совета Европы о выходе .
ЕСПЧ является структурой Совета Европы.

Далее ГД должна принять федеральный закон (ФЗ), который денонсирует ФЗ 1998 года «О ратификации Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод и Протоколов к ней».

РФ также будет денонсировать Устав Совета Европы, Европейскую конвенцию по правам человека, еще четыре конвенции и, возможно, ряд документов, которые не отвечают интересам РФ, заявил вице-спикер Совета Федерации Константин Косачев.

Продолжится выполнение уже принятых постановлений Европейского Суда по правам человека, если они не противоречат Конституции Российской Федерации.
Формально членство продолжится, согласно уставу, до конца 2022 года, но РФ не намерена платить взнос за 2022 год.

Власти РФ уверяют, что выход из ЕСПЧ не ухудшит положение с правами и свободами россиян, но мы с вами это и так знаем, у нас самый справедливый и гуманный суд в мире.
 
Согласно решению ЕСПЧ  Россия перестанет быть стороной Конвенции 16 сентября 2022 года.

16 марта 2022 года президиум ВС РФ вынес 5 постановлений о возобновлении производств по уголовным делам в связи с нарушениями Конвенции, установленными ЕСПЧ. С тех пор подобные вопросы, по данным базы решений сайта ВС РФ, на рассмотрение не выносились.

 
Путин подписал законы о неисполнении постановлений ЕСПЧ в России после 15 марта


Документы ЕСПЧ также перестанут быть основанием для пересмотра вынесенных российскими судами решений.
Государственная дума 18 мая приняла в первом чтении пакет из двух законопроектов о неисполнении постановлений ЕСПЧ, вынесенных после 16 марта. Ко второму чтению депутаты внесли поправки, предполагающие изменение этой даты на 15 марта (в этот день Россия подала уведомление о выходе из Совета Европы).


До 1 января 2023 года Генеральная прокуратура России может выплачивать денежную компенсацию заявителю по постановлениям ЕСПЧ, вынесенным до 16 марта.
Страницы: Пред. 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38
Читают тему (гостей: 2)

ЗЛОУПОТРЕБЛЕНИЕ НАРКОТИКАМИ РАЗРУШАЕТ
Новое на форумах
27.06.2022 14:27:45
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ
Просмотров: 174465
Ответов: 296
21.06.2022 06:05:37
База данных ЕСПЧ по поданным жалобам
Просмотров: 8730
Ответов: 5
20.06.2022 15:01:52
Контрабанда
Просмотров: 130982
Ответов: 352
20.06.2022 14:51:34
Понятые
Просмотров: 164045
Ответов: 330
20.06.2022 14:46:21
Я признался. Что делать?
Просмотров: 97408
Ответов: 259
18.06.2022 22:11:06
Помогите, пожалуйста, советом!
Просмотров: 195666
Ответов: 563
13.06.2022 06:40:13
Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
Просмотров: 470580
Ответов: 930
05.04.2022 22:54:57
Пытки
Просмотров: 2776
Ответов: 8
Узнать № жалобы в ЕСПЧ
Новая услуга Антисуда