**<1> Перевод с английского ООО "Развитие правовых систем".**
**<2> Настоящее Постановление вступило в силу 25 февраля 2021 г. в соответствии с положениями [пункта 2 статьи 28](https://bukva.ai/docs/konventsiya-5-se-sovet-evropy-2/statya-28#p100610) Конвенции (примеч. редактора).**
**По делу "Бельский и другие против Российской Федерации" Европейский Суд по правам человека (Третья Секция), заседая Комитетом в составе:**
**Дариана Павли, Председателя Комитета Суда,**
**Дмитрия Дедова,**
**Пеэтера Роосма, судей,**
**а также при участии Лив Тигерштедт, исполняющей обязанности заместителя Секретаря Секции Суда,**
**рассмотрев дело в закрытом заседании 4 февраля 2021 г.,**
**вынес в указанный день следующее Постановление:**
**ПРОЦЕДУРА**
1.
**6. Заявители жаловались главным образом на то, что их содержание под стражей было необоснованно длительным. Они ссылались на [пункт 3 статьи 5](https://bukva.ai/docs/konventsiya-5-se-sovet-evropy-2/statya-5#p100048) Конвенции, которая предусматривает следующее:**
**"3. Каждый задержанный или заключенный под стражу в соответствии с [подпунктом "c" пункта 1 настоящей статьи](https://bukva.ai/docs/konventsiya-5-se-sovet-evropy-2/statya-5#p100043) имеет право на судебное разбирательство в течение разумного срока или на освобождение до суда. Освобождение может быть обусловлено предоставлением гарантий явки в суд".**
**7. Европейский Суд отмечает, что общие принципы, касающиеся права на рассмотрение дела судом в разумный срок или на освобождение на период рассмотрения дела в суде, гарантированные [пунктом 3 статьи 5](https://bukva.ai/docs/konventsiya-5-se-sovet-evropy-2/statya-5#p100048) Конвенции, были изложены им в ряде предыдущих постановлений (см. среди многих других прецедентов, Постановление Большой Палаты Европейского Суда по делу "Кудла против Польши" ( Kud³a v. Poland), жалоба N 30210/96, [§ 110](https://bukva.ai/docs/postanovlenie-3098596#p100236), ECHR2000-XI; а также Постановление Большой Палаты Европейского Суда по делу "Маккей против Соединенного Королевства" (McKay v. United Kingdom), жалоба N 543/03, [§ 41](https://bukva.ai/docs/postanovlenie-54303#p100114) - [44](https://bukva.ai/docs/postanovlenie-54303#p100117), ECHR 2006-X, с дальнейшими ссылками).**
8.
| 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. | 11318/18
15/02/2018 | Vladimir Aleksandrovich BELSKIY
1964 | | 15/03/2017 to
23/11/2017 | Priozerskiy City Court of Leningrad Region,
Leningrad Regional Court,
Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg,
St Petersburg City Court | 8 months and 9 days | Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding. | Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - 23/11/2017, Priozerskiy City Court of Leningrad Region. | 9,750 |
| 2. | 42491/18
27/08/2018 | Vsevolod Sergeyevich LOSEV
1987 | Tretyak Tatyana Aleksandrovna
Gelendzhik | 09/12/2016 to
01/11/2019
03/11/2020
pending | Gelendzhik Town Court,
Krasnodar Regional Court | More than 3 years and 1 month and 7 days | 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. | Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in a van on multiple occasion between the detention facilities and the Gelendzhik Town Court and the Krasnodar Regional Court from 10/12/2016 onwards; proceedings still pending; transport on-going; extremely cramped conditions; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air and natural light; | 9,750 |
| Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage during the detention, pre-trial and trial hearings held at the Gelendzhik Town Court on numerous occasions from 10/12/2016 onwards (last time on 25/07/2018); proceedings are still pending. |
| 3. | 56059/18
13/11/2018 | Shamil Khazhgaliyevich SHARIPOV
1977 | | 04/02/2015 to
30/07/2018 | Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Privolzhskiy District Military Court | 3 years and 5 months and 27 days | 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. | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport; | 6,100 |
| Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant between the detention facility and the court house on numerous occasions from 18/09/2017 to 30/07/2018; 0.3 sq. m of personal space; transport by van and detention in convoy and transit cells; lack of ventilation, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking. |
| 4. | 26595/19
06/05/2019 | Mikhail Anatolyevich MITROSHCHUK
1979 | | 11/09/2017 to
31/05/2019 | Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court | 1 year and 8 months and 21 days | Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts. | | 2,500 |
| 5. | 30706/19
29/05/2019 | Vadim Sergeyevich KOMORNIKOV
1988 | | 26/10/2017 to
24/10/2019 | Supreme Court of the Komi Republic | 1 year and 11 months and 29 days | Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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; 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 - 46 days of appellate review of the detention order (Appellate Decision of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic of 01/04/2019 against the detention order of 12/02/2019). | 3,400 |
| 6. | 30714/19
24/05/2019 | Leonid LIGER
1976 | Sukhareva Tatyana Viktorovna
Moscow | 07/07/2016
to
19/08/2019 | Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court | 3 years and 1 month and 13 days | 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; as the case progressed failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention. | | 4,200 |
| 7. | 31979/19
05/06/2019 | Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich USHAKOV
1983 | Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich
Krasnodar | 08/10/2018 to
04/07/2019 | Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar; Krasnodar Regional Court | 8 months and 27 days | Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; the applicant is charged with misuse of funds - "white collar" type of 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. | | 1,300 |
| 8. | 37174/19
23/05/2019 | Saitgaray Zakir ogly KAMALEYEV
1991 | | 08/10/2016 to
03/06/2019 | Novo-Savinskiy District Court of Kazan,
Sovetskiy District Court,
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic | 2 years and 7 months and 27 days | Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed. | | 3,600 |