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

Олег Москвин (Все сообщения пользователя)

Выбрать дату в календареВыбрать дату в календаре

Страницы: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 431 След.
Помогите, пожалуйста, советом!
 
Не могу сказать, давно не актуализировал свои знания по данному конкретному вопросу, а поскольку консультации в рамках форума я, как было объявлено, больше не провожу, то и повода актуализировать не имеется.
Погуглите, наверняка найдёте инфу.
Изменено: Олег Москвин - 18.05.2022 09:52:38
База данных ЕСПЧ по поданным жалобам, Содержание учетных карточек поданных жалоб
 
Европейский суд по правам человека (ЕСПЧ), все жалобы, все страны за [B]2022[/B] по состоянию на [B]12.05.2022[/B]

Предыдущие версии файлов можно найти на телеграм канале [URL=http://t.me/echr_base]t.me/echr_base[/URL]
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)


ВС отменил усиление наказания, примененное кассационным судом по представлению, не содержащему просьбы от усилении по приведенному судом основанию
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)


ВС не признал исследованием доказательств оглашение и обозрение материалов дела
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

ВС согласился с представлением о необходимости вменения курьеру не перевозки, а покушения на сбыт
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

ВС объединил эпизоды в единое продолжаемое преступление и снизил наказание
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)


ВС РФ отменил кассационное решение, ухудшившее положение осужденного, и применил ст. 73 УК
Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
 
Согласно [URL=https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Resolution_ECHR_cessation_membership_Russia_CoE_ENG.pdf]решению[/URL] 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.

ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

Две кассационные инстанции не смогли исправить улучшающие положение осужденного ошибки нижестоящих судов, тк находились за пределами года.

Первая инстанция изменила обвинение с 2х оконченных эпизодов сбыта в крупном размере на 13 неоконченных в значительном и оставила ещё допэпизоды по покушению в крупном размере и по хранению в значительном. Кассация сочла изменение ухудшением положения и вернулась к 2м эпизодам, оставив неоконченность но, будучи за пределами года, оказалась вынужденной остаться и на значительных размерах. При этом кассация, признав в мотивировочной части законными допэпизоды, забыла внести их в резолютивную часть. ВС РФ, тоже будучи за пределами года, не смог исправить допущенное кассацией ротозейство.

Интересно было распутывать, запишу подкаст об этой истории.
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

ВС РФ согласился с прокурором в том, что прекращение уголовного дела по ч. 1 ст. 228 УК с назначением судебного штрафа в связи с заглаживанием вины требует обоснования с учетом объекта преступления
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

Производство наркотиков, в т.ч. упаковка и расфасовка, не нуждается в дополнительной квалификации как покушение на сбыт
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

Техническая ошибка в приговоре привела к снижению наказания
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

Производство не нуждается в дополнительной квалификации как покушение на сбыт
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

Размещение оптовой закладки и сообщение оператору координат переквалифицировано с оконченного состава на покушение вне зависимости от того, что впоследствии оператор сообщил координаты розничному закладчику, и часть вещества была продана конечному потребителю.
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

Исключение из приговора ст. 210 УК не повлекло реабилитации
Пытки
 
Сенатор Людмила Нарусова внесла законопроект, призванный обессмыслить выбивание признательных показаний. Пройдёт ли...


ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН

О ВНЕСЕНИИ ИЗМЕНЕНИЙ В УГОЛОВНО-ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНЫЙ КОДЕКС

РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ



Внести в Уголовно-процессуальный [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=405616&date=03.04.2022]кодекс[/URL] Российской Федерации от 18.12.2001 N 174-ФЗ (ред. от 01.07.2021, с изм. от 23.09.2021) следующие изменения:

В [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=405616&dst=100683&field=134&date=03.04.2022]статье 75[/URL]:

из [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=405616&dst=100686&field=134&date=03.04.2022]подпункта 1 пункта 2[/URL] исключить следующие слова:

"в отсутствие защитника включая случаи отказа от защитника" и указанный [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=405616&dst=100686&field=134&date=03.04.2022]подпункт[/URL] изложить в следующей редакции:

"показания подозреваемого, обвиняемого, данные в ходе досудебного производства по уголовному делу и не подтвержденные подозреваемым, обвиняемым в суде.".



Президент

Российской Федерации











ПОЯСНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ЗАПИСКА

К ПРОЕКТУ ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОГО ЗАКОНА "О ВНЕСЕНИИ ИЗМЕНЕНИЙ

В УГОЛОВНО-ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНЫЙ КОДЕКС РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ"



Конституция Российской Федерации в [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=2875&dst=100088&field=134&date=03.04.2022]статье 21[/URL] провозглашает обязанность государства охранять достоинство личности и закрепляет один из принципов свободного демократического государства, согласно которому никто не должен подвергаться пыткам, насилию, другому жестокому или унижающему человеческое достоинство обращению или наказанию.

Международные обязательства Российской Федерации в сфере противодействия пыткам закреплены в ряде международных договоров, в том числе в [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=INT&n=15041&date=03.04.2022]Конвенции[/URL] ООН против пыток и других жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видов обращения и наказания (Нью-Йорк, 10 декабря 1984 г.) и в Европейской [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=INT&n=15039&date=03.04.2022]конвенции[/URL] о предупреждении пыток и бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видов обращения и наказания (Страсбург, 26 ноября 1987 г.).

Действующий Уголовный [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=408084&date=03.04.2022]кодекс[/URL] Российской Федерации устанавливает уголовную ответственность за два вида преступлений, применительно к которым пытка рассматривается в качестве квалифицирующего признака, с наличием которого законодатель связывает повышенную общественную опасность деяния и, соответственно, более строгое наказание.

Тем не менее, Россия стабильно находится в списке стран, лидирующих по количеству нарушений [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=30222&dst=100025&field=134&date=03.04.2022]ст. 3[/URL] Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

Наиболее тревожащими являются эти проблемы на этапах расследования и возбуждения уголовных дел. Заявления обвиняемых в судах о примененных к ним пытках зачастую судьями игнорируются. В результате не исключается осуждение невиновных, виновные остаются на свободе и утверждаются в своей безнаказанности.

Исследования показывают, что увольнения, осуждение сотрудников правоохранительных органов за применение насилия к обвиняемым не стали препятствием в пресечении пыток и фальсификации доказательств, поскольку не решались главные проблемы, не устранялись причины, порождающие эти правонарушения. Явления эти не новые, известны многие десятилетия. Решение их не имеет простых рецептов. Необходим комплекс системных мер на нормативном и организационном уровне.

В частности, одна из главных причин использования оперативниками насилия - их заинтересованность в демонстрировании раскрытия преступления по делам, где нет весомых доказательств вины, но для повышения показателей бывает достаточно выбить признания, в том числе у невиновных. При этом оперативники и нередко следователи учитывают сложившуюся практику передоверия судьями полученным на предварительном следствии признаниям, несмотря на отказ обвиняемых в суде от этих показаний, жалобы на пытки, слабость и противоречивость доказательств.

По этой причине, чтобы обессмыслить применение пыток и не допустить привлечения к уголовной ответственности невиновных, необходимо внести изменения в [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=405616&dst=100683&field=134&date=03.04.2022]статью 75[/URL] УПК РФ, в которой в [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=405616&dst=100686&field=134&date=03.04.2022]подпункте 1 пункта 2[/URL] дано перечисление недопустимых доказательств и указано, что к ним относятся показания подозреваемого, обвиняемого, данные в ходе досудебного производства в отсутствие защитника, включая случаи отказа от защитника, и не подтвержденные подозреваемым, обвиняемым в суде. Из этого [URL=https://login.consultant.ru/link/?req=doc&demo=2&base=LAW&n=405616&dst=100686&field=134&date=03.04.2022]подпункта[/URL] следует убрать слова "в отсутствие защитника, включая случаи отказа от защитника". Такая необходимость обусловлена следующими причинами. Подавляющее большинство обвиняемых не имеют возможности пригласить адвоката по соглашению из-за очень высокой дороговизны адвокатских услуг. Как показывает практика, оперативные работники, следователи используют это обстоятельство. Они организовывают участие адвокатов по назначению, приглашают нередко тех, кто заведомо не будет портить им показатели. В присутствии этих адвокатов производятся допросы без применения пыток, но заранее предупреждают обвиняемых, что если они не будут признавать себя виновными, их ожидают пытки, либо угрожают неприятностями их родственникам. Адвокаты в таких случаях фактически им необходимы, чтобы подтверждали в суде отсутствие пыток. Если из текста закона уберут слова "в отсутствие защитника, включая случаи отказа от защитника", проблема обвинения невиновных в значительной степени будет решена. Следователям необходимо будет добывать другие доказательства вины обвиняемых, которые позволят быть уверенными в привлечении виновных, в реальном раскрытии преступлений.

Особенно актуально изменение этой ситуации в суде присяжных. Речь идет о запрете судьям, прокурорам и адвокатам информировать присяжных о жалобах подсудимых на признания, полученные в результате применения пыток, когда в судебном заседании они отказываются от этих признаний. Суды при этом ссылаются на закон, не позволяющий знакомить присяжных с недопустимыми доказательствами. Однако в таких случаях речь идет не о недопустимости доказательств, а о достоверности признаний, данных на следствии, возможно в результате применения пыток. Беда здесь еще и в том, что на практике прокурор убеждает присяжных доверять не показаниям, данным в суде, а тем, которые были даны на предварительном следствии. О жалобах на пытки присяжным не сообщают. В таком случае присяжные могут быть введены в заблуждение по поводу достоверности признаний. Это очень опасная практика. Ее изменение заставит следователей подумать о бессмысленности пыток, побудит их ориентироваться не на выбитые признания, а на поиск других убедительных доказательств.
Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
 
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.
База данных ЕСПЧ по поданным жалобам, Содержание учетных карточек поданных жалоб
 
ЕСПЧ, все жалобы, все страны за [B]2021[/B] по состоянию на [B]11[/B][B].05.2022[/B]

Предыдущие версии файлов можно найти на телеграм канале [URL=http://t.me/echr_base]t.me/echr_base[/URL]
Изменено: Олег Москвин - 11.05.2022 21:09:11 (Обновление файла)
Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
 

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

[B]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[/B]. Приостановление — это не окончательная мера, а временная, оставляющая открытыми каналы связи."

[URL=https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-suspends-russia-s-rights-of-representation]Источник[/URL]

Пока так, дальнейшее зависит..

ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

ВС РФ оставил без удовлетворения кассационное представление Генпрокуратуры о переквалификации 2 эпизодов хранения 2х видов наркотика, произведенных из одного растения, на единое продолжаемое преступление
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

ВС РФ переквалифицировал два сбыта одного и того же наркотика одному и тому же закупщику на единое продолжаемое преступление и снизил срок на год
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

ВС РФ переквалифицировал получение закладчиком мелкооптовой партии трех видов наркотиков для целей будущего сбыта как единое продолжаемое покушение на сбыт

Как видно из многочисленных разнонаправленных судебных решений, в голове у Фемиды по поводу единых продолжаемых преступлений царит хаос и каша.
Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
 
[TABLE][TR][TD]

No.

[/TD][TD]

Application no.

Date of introduction

[/TD][TD]

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

[/TD][TD]

Period of detention

[/TD][TD]

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

[/TD][TD]

Length of detention

[/TD][TD]

Specific defects

[/TD][TD]

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

(in euros)[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_edn1][1][/URL]

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2221552/19%22]}]21552/19[/URL]

08/04/2019

[/TD][TD]

Vasiliy Vyacheslavovich DVIRNIK

1990

[/TD][TD]

28/10/2015 to

06/10/2019

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s) and

11 month(s) and

9 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

5,200

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2246737/19%22]}]46737/19[/URL]

17/07/2019

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr Viktorovich GERASIMOV

1984

[/TD][TD]

09/11/2014

pending

[/TD][TD]

Severodvinsk Town Court;

Arkhangelsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

6,500

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2259500/19%22]}]59500/19[/URL]

06/11/2019

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr Valeriyevich SLIVETS

1984

[/TD][TD]

28/05/2019

pending

[/TD][TD]

Syktyvkar Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

[/TD][TD]

More than 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and

25 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

2,000

(awarded by the Court)

and 500

(under the friendly settlement agreement)

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%224413/20%22]}]4413/20[/URL]

25/12/2019

[/TD][TD]

Yuriy Yuryevich POLITOV

1966

[/TD][TD]

15/10/2017 to

22/07/2020

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

3,900

[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
 
КОМПЕНСАЦИИ ЕСПЧ ЗА НЕОБОСНОВАННЫЕ СТРАЖИ[TABLE][TR][TD]

No.

[/TD][TD]

Application no.

Date of introduction

[/TD][TD]

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

[/TD][TD]

Period of detention

[/TD][TD]

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

[/TD][TD]

Length of detention

[/TD][TD]

Specific defects

[/TD][TD]

Other complaints under well‑established case-law

[/TD][TD]

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

(in euros)[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_edn1][1][/URL]

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%229209/11%22]}]9209/11[/URL]

30/11/2010

[/TD][TD]

Sergey Aleksandrovich MALYSHEV

1979

[/TD][TD]

01/07/2010 to

13/04/2011

[/TD][TD]

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Moscow,

Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

9 month(s) and 13 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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).

[/TD][TD]

1,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2223736/17%22]}]23736/17[/URL]

06/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich TYSHKO

1972

[/TD][TD]

28/10/2015 to

16/03/2016

02/08/2016 to

10/05/2017

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk,

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

4 month(s) and 18 day(s)

9 month(s) and 9 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

2,000

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2233054/17%22]}]33054/17[/URL]

12/04/2017

[/TD][TD]

Rustem Valeriyanovich KHAMZIN

1977

[/TD][TD]

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

[/TD][TD]

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa,

Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic,

Privolzhskiy Military District Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2237006/17%22]}]37006/17[/URL]

12/05/2017

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr Valeryevich KORNEV

1987

[/TD][TD]

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

[/TD][TD]

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa,

Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic,

Privolzhskiy Military District Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2238207/17%22]}]38207/17[/URL]

04/05/2017

[/TD][TD]

Artem Mikhaylovich ZYULIN

1981

[/TD][TD]

02/12/2014 to

05/05/2017

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,400

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2262452/17%22]}]62452/17[/URL]

07/08/2017

[/TD][TD]

Timur Nikolayevich MALYGIN

1996

[/TD][TD]

12/04/2015 to

03/10/2017

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,400

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2265217/17%22]}]65217/17[/URL]

23/08/2017

[/TD][TD]

Givi Borisovich DZHAGMAIDZE

1979

[/TD][TD]

17/03/2017

to

20/11/2019

[/TD][TD]

Georgiyevsk Town Court;

Stavropol Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,800

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2269128/17%22]}]69128/17[/URL]

21/08/2017

[/TD][TD]

Denis Sergeyevich KHOROBRYKH

1987

[/TD][TD]

22/01/2015 to

03/10/2017

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

9,750

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2224901/18%22]}]24901/18[/URL]

24/04/2018

[/TD][TD]

Rafis Ravilevich NASYBULLIN

1980

[/TD][TD]

22/11/2016 to

19/02/2019

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 29 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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. [URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2266820/01%22]}]66820/01[/URL], 9 March 2006, § 129)

[/TD][TD]

3,500

[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

[TABLE][TR][TD]

No.

[/TD][TD]

Application no.

Date of introduction

[/TD][TD]

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

[/TD][TD]

Representative’s name and location

[/TD][TD]

Period of detention

[/TD][TD]

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

[/TD][TD]

Length of detention

[/TD][TD]

Specific defects

[/TD][TD]

Other complaints under well‑established case-law

[/TD][TD]

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_edn1][1][/URL]

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2251122/07%22]}]51122/07[/URL]

05/11/2007

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr Voldemarovich PEYET

1969

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

05/07/2006 to

30/07/2007

[/TD][TD]

Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver,

Tver Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s) and 26 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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. [URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%226847/02%22]}]6847/02[/URL], §§ 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)

[/TD][TD]

3,900

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%221649/15%22]}]1649/15[/URL]

27/12/2014

[/TD][TD]

Vladimir Antonovich ROZHIN

1996

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

24/03/2014 to

05/05/2015

[/TD][TD]

Dorogoilovskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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)

[/TD][TD]

9,750

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2255279/15%22]}]55279/15[/URL]

12/10/2015

[/TD][TD]

Ruslan Sergeyevich PYLAYEV

1976

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

08/10/2014 to

23/05/2016

[/TD][TD]

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

Primorye Regional Court,

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,300

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228373/17%22]}]28373/17[/URL]

22/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Andrey Yuryevich MAKAROV

1979

[/TD][TD]

Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

16/07/2015 to

29/05/2017

[/TD][TD]

Vologda Town Court;

Vologda Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2241745/17%22]}]41745/17[/URL]

31/07/2017

[/TD][TD]

Yuriy Vladimirovich SHAGAYKO

1982

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

18/12/2015 to

21/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

1,800

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2266966/17%22]}]66966/17[/URL]

26/08/2017

[/TD][TD]

Viktor Aleksandrovich VASILYEV

1958

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

30/08/2014 to

23/03/2018

[/TD][TD]

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,800

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2269404/17%22]}]69404/17[/URL]

30/08/2017

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KNYAZEV

1994

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

06/07/2015 to

03/10/2017

[/TD][TD]

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

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,000

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2221542/19%22]}]21542/19[/URL]

04/04/2019

[/TD][TD]

Aleksey Vyacheslavovich SUSHKOV

1977

[/TD][TD]

Znamenshchikov Yevgeniy Vladimirovich

Lipetsk

[/TD][TD]

31/08/2018 to

19/07/2019

[/TD][TD]

Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk;

Lipetsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

10 month(s) and 20 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

1,300

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2222058/19%22]}]22058/19[/URL]

11/04/2019

[/TD][TD]

Viktor Vadimovich FEDOSEYEV

1993

[/TD][TD]

Yeliseyev Oleg Viktorovich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

09/09/2018

pending

[/TD][TD]

Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

3,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228846/19%22]}]28846/19[/URL]

07/05/2019

[/TD][TD]

Igor Nikolayevich SHVETS

1965

[/TD][TD]

Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

13/04/2018

pending

[/TD][TD]

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

9,750

[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

[TABLE][TR][TD]

No.

[/TD][TD]

Application no.

Date of introduction

[/TD][TD]

Applicant’s name

Date of birth

[/TD][TD]

Representative’s name and location

[/TD][TD]

Period of detention

[/TD][TD]

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

[/TD][TD]

Length of detention

[/TD][TD]

Specific defects

[/TD][TD]

Other complaints under well-established case-law

[/TD][TD]

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

(in euros)[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_ftn1][1][/URL]

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2210179/05%22]}]10179/05[/URL]

21/02/2005

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr Vitalyevich

DIKIN

02/02/1972

[/TD][TD]

Dikin Denis Mikhaylovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

[/TD][TD]

18/06/2004 to

04/08/2006

[/TD][TD]

Bogorodsk Town Court; Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod;

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s)

and

1 month(s) and

18 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

10,750

(under the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government)

2,900

(under the present judgment)

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228828/17%22]}]28828/17[/URL]

30/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Artur

Raulevich SALIMOV

05/09/1986

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

[/TD][TD]

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa;

the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s) and

27 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228882/17%22]}]28882/17[/URL]

29/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Danis Miratovich FAYZRAKHMANOV

04/09/1988

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

[/TD][TD]

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa;

the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s) and

27 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

Collective detention orders; the applicant in the present case was a co-defendant in the case of Mr Salimov (see application no. [URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228828/17%22]}]28828/17[/URL] above). The findings of the Court in Mr Salimov’s case as regards specific defects are fully applicable to the present case.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2229901/17%22]}]29901/17[/URL]

27/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Rinat Ranifovich NURLYGAYANOV

03/01/1991

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

04/02/2015 to

30/07/2018

[/TD][TD]

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa;

the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s) and

27 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

Collective detention orders;

the applicant in the present case was a co-defendant in the case of Mr Salimov (see application no. [URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228828/17%22]}]28828/17[/URL] above). The findings of the Court in Mr Salimov’s case as regards specific defects are fully applicable to the present case.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2218170/18%22]}]18170/18[/URL]

09/04/2018

[/TD][TD]

Magomedkamil Magomedzapirovich[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_ftn2][2][/URL] MANSUROV

05/05/1987

[/TD][TD]

Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

15/02/2018 to

30/03/2020

[/TD][TD]

Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s)

and

1 month(s) and

16 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

500

(under the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government)

3,200

(under the present judgment)

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2238349/18%22]}]38349/18[/URL]

06/08/2018

[/TD][TD]

Maksim Mikhaylovich BATISHCHEV

30/07/1989

[/TD][TD]

Kopteyeva Anastasiya Vladimirovna

Chita

[/TD][TD]

12/10/2016 to

21/08/2018

[/TD][TD]

Mogochinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region; Zabaykalskiy Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s)

and 10 month(s) and

10 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2239183/18%22]}]39183/18[/URL]

15/08/2018

[/TD][TD]

Oksana Viktorovna KRAVCHENKO

28/01/1974

[/TD][TD]

Bulysov Roman Yevgenyevich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

17/02/2016 to

10/07/2019

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

and

4 month(s) and

24 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,600

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2242639/18%22]}]42639/18[/URL]

28/08/2018

[/TD][TD]

Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich STASHCHENKO

29/03/1995

[/TD][TD]

Uporov Igor Nikolayevich

Yekaterinburg

[/TD][TD]

14/03/2016 to

27/11/2018

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s)

and

8 month(s) and

14 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,800

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2246290/18%22]}]46290/18[/URL]

27/08/2018

[/TD][TD]

Ivan

Viktorovich BUFTYAK

18/08/1988

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

20/08/2014 to

02/04/2020

[/TD][TD]

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

Moscow Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

5 year(s)

and

7 month(s) and

14 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

6,500

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2246746/18%22]}]46746/18[/URL]

04/02/2019

[/TD][TD]

Andrey Sergeyevich GOBUZOV

16/06/1981

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

17/01/2018 to

06/05/2019

[/TD][TD]

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s)

and

3 month(s) and

20 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

9,750

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2249702/18%22]}]49702/18[/URL]

09/10/2018

[/TD][TD]

Emin

Orudzhali ogly GAMIDOV

07/10/1985

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

23/01/2018 to

24/12/2019

[/TD][TD]

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s)

and

2 month(s) and

11 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,600

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2251467/18%22]}]51467/18[/URL]

30/10/2018

[/TD][TD]

Olga

Mikhaylovna FROLOVA

30/05/1980

[/TD][TD]

Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

16/10/2016

To

20/06/2019

[/TD][TD]

Tambov Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

More than 3 year(s)

and

7 month(s) and

18 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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).

[/TD][TD]

4,900

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2251693/18%22]}]51693/18[/URL]

23/10/2018

[/TD][TD]

Vladimir Vladimirovich SOBOLEV

30/06/1975

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

09/10/2013

to

18/07/2017

05/06/2018 to

13/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

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

6 month(s) and

9 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

5,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2252182/18%22]}]52182/18[/URL]

25/10/2018

[/TD][TD]

Vasiliy

Sergeyevich USTINOV

25/04/1984

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandrova Lyudmila Aleksandrovna

Krasnodar

[/TD][TD]

09/06/2017 to

19/03/2020

[/TD][TD]

Prikubansky District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s)

and

9 month(s) and

11 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,900

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2252473/18%22]}]52473/18[/URL]

25/10/2018

[/TD][TD]

Yelena

Valentinovna SELIVERSTOVA

02/01/1971

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

08/10/2014 to

04/09/2018

[/TD][TD]

Samarskiy District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

and 10 month(s) and

28 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

5,300

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2253026/18%22]}]53026/18[/URL]

02/11/2018

[/TD][TD]

Sergey Aleksandrovich SHAKHMAN

29/08/1973

[/TD][TD]

Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

04/10/2016 to

11/09/2018

[/TD][TD]

Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s)

and 11 month(s) and

8 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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. [URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2224715/16%22]}]24715/16[/URL] 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.

[/TD][TD]

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. [URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2210638/08%22]}]10638/08[/URL], §§ 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. [URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%225826/03%22]}]5826/03[/URL], §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

[/TD][TD]

1,400

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2258185/18%22]}]58185/18[/URL]

07/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Grigoriy

Ulyanovich PIRUMOV

09/06/1962

[/TD][TD]

Zykov Andrey Leonidovich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

17/05/2018

to

12/08/2019

[/TD][TD]

Basmanniy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

More than 2 year(s)

and

17 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

1,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2259010/18%22]}]59010/18[/URL]

30/11/2018

[/TD][TD]

Andrey Valentinovich UTKIN

23/11/1966

[/TD][TD]

Polozov Kirill Borisovich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

05/12/2017 to

16/08/2019

[/TD][TD]

Leninskiy Distrcit Court of Stavropol; Stavropol Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s)

and

8 month(s) and

12 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,500

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%221107/19%22]}]1107/19[/URL]

13/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr

Petrovich DOLMATOV

12/05/1977

[/TD][TD]

Aksenova Yuliya Vladimirovna

Volgograd

[/TD][TD]

14/05/2015 to

25/07/2018

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

and

2 month(s) and

12 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,300

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%221922/19%22]}]1922/19[/URL]

12/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Denis Bakhodirzhonovich GULAMOV

21/02/1986

[/TD][TD]

Urychev Aleksandr Vitalyevich

Chelyabinsk

[/TD][TD]

15/06/2017 to

13/04/2020

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s)

and

9 month(s) and

18 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

9,750

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%222404/19%22]}]2404/19[/URL]

13/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Vladimir Vladimirovich SURKOV

28/04/1983

[/TD][TD]

Aksenova Yuliya Vladimirovna

Volgograd

[/TD][TD]

21/05/2015 to

25/07/2018

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s)

and

2 month(s) and

5 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,300

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%224780/19%22]}]4780/19[/URL]

10/01/2019

[/TD][TD]

Pavel Nikolayevich PETROV

13/07/1985

[/TD][TD]

Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich

Astrakhan

[/TD][TD]

20/04/2018

to

17/07/2019

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

More than 2 year(s)

and

1 month(s) and

14 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

1,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%224781/19%22]}]4781/19[/URL]

10/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Yuliya Anatolyevna VERPEKINA

30/11/1986

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

21/02/2018 pending

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

2 year(s)

and

1 month(s) and

13 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,100

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%224816/19%22]}]4816/19[/URL]

14/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Nataliya Igorevna KOZHANOVA

30/08/1955

[/TD][TD]

Vladimirov Andrey Vladimirovich

Yoshkar-Ola

[/TD][TD]

13/04/2017

pending

[/TD][TD]

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

More than 3 year(s)

and

1 month(s) and

21 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,200

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%225441/19%22]}]5441/19[/URL]

04/01/2019

[/TD][TD]

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich NIKOLAYENKO

19/02/1980

[/TD][TD]

Solovyev Yuriy Germanovich

St Petersburg

[/TD][TD]

30/05/2018 pending

[/TD][TD]

St Petersburg City Court; Kuybyshevsky District Court of St Petersburg

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s)

and 10 month(s) and

3 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

3,500

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%226416/19%22]}]6416/19[/URL]

10/01/2019

[/TD][TD]

Ruslan Makhmudovich GADZHIYEV

27/12/1985

[/TD][TD]

Klyubin Sergey Nikolayevich

Velikiy Novgorod

[/TD][TD]

19/05/2018 to

13/03/2019

[/TD][TD]

Novgorod District Court of the Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

9 month(s) and

23 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

1,300

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%226731/19%22]}]6731/19[/URL]

27/12/2018

[/TD][TD]

Yuriy Aleksandrovich LOSKUTOV

16/11/1989

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

10/10/2017

pending

[/TD][TD]

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

St Petersburg City Court

[/TD][TD]

More than 2 year(s)

and

7 month(s) and

24 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,600

[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

[TABLE][TR][TD]

No.

[/TD][TD]

Application no.

Date of introduction

[/TD][TD]

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

[/TD][TD]

Representative’s name and location

[/TD][TD]

Period of detention

[/TD][TD]

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

[/TD][TD]

Length of detention

[/TD][TD]

Specific defects

[/TD][TD]

Other complaints under well-established case-law

[/TD][TD]

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

(in euros)[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_edn1][1][/URL]

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2225742/17%22]}]25742/17[/URL]

15/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Andrey Rashitovich IKRAMOV

1973

[/TD][TD]

Kulapov Vitaliy Viktorovich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

03/03/2015 to

06/02/2018

[/TD][TD]

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

4,400

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228311/17%22]}]28311/17[/URL]

05/04/2017

[/TD][TD]

Yuriy Baronovich KUDZAGOV

1977

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

11/04/2012 to

21/11/2016

[/TD][TD]

Mytishchi Town Court,

Moscow Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

6,200

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2228726/17%22]}]28726/17[/URL]

07/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Ramil Rafikovich ZALYAYEV

1966

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

13/01/2014 to

09/06/2017

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

4,600

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2231080/17%22]}]31080/17[/URL]

21/03/2017

[/TD][TD]

Ilyas Miskhatovich SABIRZYANOV

1969

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

26/01/2013 to

18/10/2017

[/TD][TD]

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan,

Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

6,400

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%227318/18%22]}]7318/18[/URL]

26/01/2018

[/TD][TD]

Nikita Alekseyevich YASHKIN

1981

[/TD][TD]

Shein Yevgeniy Valentinovich

St Petersburg

[/TD][TD]

25/10/2014 to

19/09/2018

[/TD][TD]

St Petersburg City Court

[/TD][TD]

3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

5,300

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%224715/19%22]}]4715/19[/URL]

13/05/2019

[/TD][TD]

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich FRIDRIKH

1993

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

11/10/2018 to

27/05/2019

[/TD][TD]

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

7 month(s) and 17 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

9,750

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2213050/19%22]}]13050/19[/URL]

03/06/2019

[/TD][TD]

Vladimir Leonidovich TORSHIN

1963

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

31/05/2017 to

17/05/2019

[/TD][TD]

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

9,750

[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

[TABLE][TR][TD]

No.

[/TD][TD]

Application no.

Date of introduction

[/TD][TD]

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

[/TD][TD]

Representative’s name and location

[/TD][TD]

Period of detention

[/TD][TD]

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

[/TD][TD]

Length of detention

[/TD][TD]

Specific defects

[/TD][TD]

Other complaints under well‑established case-law

[/TD][TD]

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_edn1][1][/URL]

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%224688/19%22]}]4688/19[/URL]

02/10/2019

[/TD][TD]

Sergey Ivanovich SOKOLOV

1985

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

15/02/2018 to

05/02/2020

[/TD][TD]

Berezovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

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).

[/TD][TD]

2,500

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2213041/19%22]}]13041/19[/URL]

16/07/2019

[/TD][TD]

Nikolay Fedorovich ILYINSKIY

1990

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

24/11/2017 to

01/04/2019

[/TD][TD]

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

2,500

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2241276/19%22]}]41276/19[/URL]

27/09/2019

[/TD][TD]

Aleksey Vladimirovich NEPOMNYASHCHIKH

1994

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

19/02/2018 to

02/12/2019

[/TD][TD]

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 14 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,000

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2257827/19%22]}]57827/19[/URL]

28/10/2019

[/TD][TD]

Nasrulla Bagautdinovich MAGOMEDOV

1992

[/TD][TD]

Rokotyanskaya Tatyana Ivanovna

Volgograd

[/TD][TD]

24/04/2019

pending

[/TD][TD]

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

More than

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 16 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,100

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2258834/19%22]}]58834/19[/URL]

22/10/2019

[/TD][TD]

Magomed-Salyakh Lechiyevich

BIGAYEV

1971

[/TD][TD]

Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

28/03/2019 to

02/02/2021

[/TD][TD]

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,000

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2258873/19%22]}]58873/19[/URL]

31/10/2019

[/TD][TD]

Vladimir Sergeyevich CHERNIKOV

1982

[/TD][TD]

Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich

Voronezh

[/TD][TD]

10/09/2018

pending

[/TD][TD]

Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh; Voronezh Regional Court

[/TD][TD]

More than

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

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,700

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2259226/19%22]}]59226/19[/URL]

22/10/2019

[/TD][TD]

Ayzat Rafikovich KALIMULLIN

1974

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

25/10/2016 to

02/12/2019

[/TD][TD]

Naberezhnyy Chelny Town Court; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

3,200

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2262758/19%22]}]62758/19[/URL]

21/11/2019

[/TD][TD]

Andrey Pavlovich BELENIN

1980

[/TD][TD]

Dvornikov Anton Nikolayevich

Moscow

[/TD][TD]

31/01/2019 to

14/10/2020

[/TD][TD]

Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow

[/TD][TD]

1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 day(s)

[/TD][TD]

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.

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

1,900

[/TD][/TR][TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[URL=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2264244/19%22]}]64244/19[/URL]

25/11/2019

[/TD][TD]

Gera Yuryevna GUZHVA

1995

[/TD][TD]

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

[/TD][TD]

27/11/2017 to

03/06/2020

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

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

[/TD][TD]

[/TD][TD]

2,700

[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ, Судебные ошибки, признаваемые таковыми судами высших инстанций
 
Подборка Полезные судебные решения пополнена текстом нового судебного акта (анонсы публикуются также в телеграм канале t.me/drug_cases)

ВС РФ не согласился с переквалификацией на единое продолжаемое преступление сбыта части приобретенного наркотика и хранение при себе остатка
Страницы: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 431 След.

ЗЛОУПОТРЕБЛЕНИЕ НАРКОТИКАМИ РАЗРУШАЕТ
Новое на форумах
18.05.2022 09:47:10
Помогите, пожалуйста, советом!
Просмотров: 191825
Ответов: 560
12.05.2022 06:00:34
База данных ЕСПЧ по поданным жалобам
Просмотров: 8171
Ответов: 5
08.05.2022 21:06:11
ПОПОЛНЕНИЕ ПОДБОРКИ ПОЛЕЗНЫХ СУДЕБНЫХ РЕШЕНИЙ
Просмотров: 170239
Ответов: 290
26.04.2022 09:03:31
Европейский Суд (ЕСПЧ)
Просмотров: 466155
Ответов: 929
05.04.2022 22:54:57
Пытки
Просмотров: 2612
Ответов: 8
09.02.2022 22:25:46
Законопроект о принудительных работах
Просмотров: 140424
Ответов: 207
30.01.2022 14:41:13
Перестройка институтов обжалования приговоров
Просмотров: 13091
Ответов: 32
28.01.2022 16:46:11
Родственник в качестве защитника
Просмотров: 433214
Ответов: 922
18.12.2021 08:30:22
НАРКОТИКИ И ПОЛИЦИЯ
Просмотров: 127638
Ответов: 383
Узнать № жалобы в ЕСПЧ
Новая услуга Антисуда