NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 29715/11 (Judgment : Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee) [2021] ECHR 485 (10 June 2021)

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 29715/11 (Judgment : Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee) [2021] ECHR 485 (10 June 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2021/485.html Cite as: [2021] ECHR 485, CE:ECHR:2021:0610JUD002971511, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0610JUD002971511

In the case of Namchyl-Ool and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT CERTAIN APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

A. Application no. 27618/18

6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no. 27618/18 whereby they acknowledged that the applicant’s complaints against the detention orders of 31 December 2017, 14 February and 16 March 2018 had not been examined “speedily” as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 500 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

7. The applicant rejected the Government’s proposal.

8. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

9. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the review of lawfulness of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012).

10. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

11. In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

12. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

13. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out application no. 27618/18 in the part concerning the review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

B. Application no. 3127/19

14. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no. 3127/19 which was not accepted by the applicant. The Court notes that the unilateral declaration did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike that application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 75).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

15. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 5 § 3

“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

16. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).

17. In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

18. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.

19. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

20. Some applicants also raised complaints under other Convention provisions (see the appended table below). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning confinement of a defendant in a metal cage during the trial and absence of effective remedies to complain thereof; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2006‑III, concerning unrecorded detention; Idalov v. Russia, Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007, as regards absence of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time).

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

21. In some applications the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

22. In particular, in application no. 27618/18 the applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about excessively lengthy detention in violation of domestic law. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application with regard to Article 5 of the Convention. It thus considers that the applicant’s complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

23. In application no. 7658/19 the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Having examined it, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of application no. 7658/19 must be dismissed in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

25. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

26. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (application no. 27618/18) and decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases an accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

3. Rejects the respondent Government’s request to strike application no. 3127/19 out of its list of cases;

4. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, as well as the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 27618/18, admissible and the remainder of application no. 7658/19 inadmissible;

5. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;

6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);

7. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 27618/18;

8. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant’s name Year of birth	Representative’s name and location	Period of detention	Court which issued detention order/examined appeal	Length of detention	Specific defects	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]
	29715/11 19/04/2011	Andrey Kara-Oolovich NAMCHYL-OOL 1967	Konin Vladimir Vladimirovich Kaliningrad	25/11/2009 to 19/07/2012	Kyzyl Town Court of the Tyva Republic, Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic	2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; the national courts extended the period of the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons throughout the whole period of his pre-trial detention	Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was placed in a metal cage during the hearing on 25 November 2010 before the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic	9,750
	35425/12 18/05/2012	Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich MELNIKOV 1970		12/03/2012 to 06/03/2013	Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg; Sverdlovsk Regional Court	11 month(s) and 23 day(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint		1,000
	41501/17 02/06/2017	Vladimir Viktorovich ZUBAREV 1977	Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich Voronezh	28/10/2016 to 06/09/2017	Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court	10 month(s) and 10 day(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint		1,000
	48049/17 09/06/2017	Aleksandr Alekseyevich GAYDA 1988	Pakin Konstantin Vladimirovich Velikiy Novgorod	03/08/2016 to 09/08/2017	Soletskiy District Court of Novgorod Region; Novgorod Regional Court	1 year(s) and 7 day(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint		1,100
	54024/17 13/07/2017	Dmitriy Nikolayevich GAGARIN 1981	Tsareva Yevgeniya Sergeyevna Vladivostok	06/06/2013 to 05/02/2018	Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Ussuriyskiy District Courts of the Primorye Region Primorye Regional Court	4 year(s) and 8 month(s)	failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts as the case progressed; collective detention orders		4,800
	78906/17 10/11/2017	Nikolay Nikolayevich YEFIMENKO 1989	Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich Astrakhan	07/07/2017 to 21/12/2017	Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court	5 month(s) and 15 day(s)	reliance exclusively on the seriousness of the charges; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint	Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - complaint about unrecorded detention between 07/07/2017 and 08/07/2017 (Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2006 III)	1,300
	79765/17 24/10/2017	Marina Nikolayevna BOCHAROVA 1975		22/07/2010 to 29/05/2017	Vologda Regional Court	6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)	failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention	Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention -the lack of enforceable right under the Russian law to receive adequate compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial	6,500
	83235/17 03/12/2017	Ruslan Yedresovich ORAZALIN 1988	Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk	28/10/2016 to 25/12/2019	Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court	3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s)	failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention	Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was placed in a metal cage during hearings in Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk (trial court) from 28/11/2016 to 07/06/2017 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against decision of 11/09/2017 extending the period of pre-trial detention was examined on 26/10/2017 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect to the placement in metal cage during the trial	9,750
	298/18 11/12/2017	Igor Borisovich NAGAVKIN 1980	Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow	28/09/2016 to 16/11/2018	Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court, Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s)	collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision of 19/06/2017 extending the period of the applicant’s detention was examined on 12/07/2017	2,700
	2505/18 19/12/2017	Edvard Borisovich ZOLOTUKHIN 1962	Timireva Olga Vladimirovna Moscow	29/08/2017 to 14/06/2018	Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	9 month(s) and 17 day(s)	fragility of reasons employed by the domestic courts; the applicant was accused of a “white-collar” crime; 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 the detention order of 30/08/2017 examined on appeal on 9/10/2017	1,300
	3143/18 27/12/2017	Sergey Sergeyevich PAKHOMOV 1985	Kharlamova Anna Vyacheslavovna Lipetsk	18/06/2015 to 06/03/2018	Levoberezhnyy District Court of Lipetsk, Lipetsk Regional Court	2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)	a number of ccollective detention orders, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention		2,900
	09/01/2018	Anastasiya Igorevna TEPLYGINA /1990	Smishchenko Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow	26/04/2016 to 11/09/2017	Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 17 day(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; the applicant was accused of an economic (“white collar”) crime		1,500
	4802/18 19/12/2017	Aleksey Arkadyevich MALOBRODSKIY 1958	Karpinskaya Kseniya Sergeyevna Moscow	19/06/2017 to 25/04/2018	Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	10 month(s) and 7 day(s)	collective detention orders (in part); fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal against the decision extending the period of the applicant’s detention of 18/07/2017 was examined on 06/09/2017	1,300
	7222/18 10/01/2018	Aleksandr Yuryevich BATRIN 1977	Korshunov Andrey Anatolyevich Volgograd	23/09/2014 to 20/08/2018	Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court	3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 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		4,000
	7349/18 19/01/2018	Aleksandr Vsevolodovich KIRBAY 1972	Pakin Konstantin Vladimirovich Velikiy Novgorod	08/08/2017 to 07/08/2018	Novgorodskiy District Court of Novgorod, Novgorod Regional Court	1 year(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts		1,000
	8349/18 16/01/2018	Petr Anatolyevich YAKOVLEV 1987	Shishkina Olga Yevgenyevna Arkhangelsk	06/06/2016 to 09/02/2018	Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court	1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)	fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint		1,900
	8828/18 06/02/2018	Aleksandr Yevgenyevich MAKAROV 1978	Plekhanov Aleksandr Valeryevich Volgograd	23/09/2014 to 20/08/2018	Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court	3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)	failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders		4,000
	27618/18 04/06/2018	Bekzod Ulugbek ugli MADZHITOV 1992	Aliyev Eldar Ibragim ogly St Petersburg	18/02/2016 to 05/07/2019	St Petersburg City Court	3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)	failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as case progressed		500 under the Government’s unilateral declaration and 3,500 in respect of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
	46294/18 29/08/2018	Ion Nikolayevich PEREVOSHCHIKOV 1978		20/08/2014 to 19/09/2019	Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region; Noginsk Town Court; Moscow Regional Court	5 year(s) and 1 month(s)	collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice		5,000
	48417/18 05/10/2018	Oleg Aleksandrovich FEOKTISTOV 1983		05/04/2017 pending	Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court	More than 3 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; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders		4,000
	50961/18 07/10/2018	Vladimir Yuryevich BORISOV 1959	Redkin Dmitriy Andreyevich Krasnoyarsk	09/04/2018 pending	Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court	More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 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		3,000
	53000/18 01/11/2018	Aleksey Valeryevich SUSHKOV 1977	Znamenshchikov Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Lipetsk	31/08/2018 pending	Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk; Lipetsk Regional Court	More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s)	failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts		2,700
	3127/19 20/12/2018	Pavel Vladimirovich LITVINTSEV 1988		08/07/2018 to 13/04/2019	Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk; Irkutsk Regional Court	9 month(s) and 6 day(s)	failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice	Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during numerous hearings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk	9,750
	6565/19 08/10/2018	Sergey Vladimirovich BRYLEV 1984		26/07/2016 pending	Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic	More than 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 day(s)	failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; 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; as the case progressed		4,900
	7658/19 21/01/2018	Vladislav Yuryevich PETRUSHENKO 1970	Baryshnikov Ivan Aleksandrovich Moscow	29/08/2018 to 28/01/2019	Khimki Town Court of the Moscow Region; Moscow Regional Court	5 month(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 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		500
	8268/19 06/02/2019	Petr Ilyich ASTAFYEV 1999	Kostyushev Vladimir Yuryevich Moscow	13/07/2018 to 05/11/2019	Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court	More than 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30 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		2,000
	8766/19 27/01/2019	Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PRIMAKOV 1978		08/06/2015 to 21/11/2018	Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court	3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 14 day(s)	use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders	Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal against the decision extending the period of the applicant’s detention of 23/07/2018 was examined on appeal on 11/09/2018.	4,100
	9489/19 01/02/2019	Sergey Stepanovich DERZHIPILSKIY 1996		15/03/2017 to 06/02/2020	Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic	2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s)	use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 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		3,000