THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 57005/18 Vadim Maratovich OSIPOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President, Dmitry Dedov , Peeter Roosma , judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 2018,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Vadim Maratovich Osipov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1998 and lived until his arrest in the settlement of Lekhtusi , the Leningrad Region . His application was lodged on 17 November 2018. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Gaynutdinov , a lawyer residing in Sofia, Bulgaria.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . On 3 April 2018 the Moscow Regional Military Court ordered to place the applicant, who has been charged with terrorism-related crimes, to a psychiatric facility for treatment and forensic psychiatric examination. On 5 April 2018 one of the applicant ’ s lawyers appealed against the above decision asking to annul it as unlawful.

5 . The appeal hearing was scheduled for 26 April 2018.

6 . On 15 and 17 April 2018 the applicant ’ s lawyers filed requests to adjourn the hearing. On 26 April 2018 the Regional Military Court adjourned the hearing as requested .

7 . On 17 May 2018 the Regional Military Court upheld the decision of 3 April 2018.

COMPLAINT

8 . The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the appeal court had not reviewed speedily the decision of 3 April 2018 ordering his placement to a psychiatric facility.

THE LAW

9 . The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about allegedly lengthy appeal review of the decision ordering his placement to a psychiatric facility. The Government in their observations submitted that the applicant ’ s appeal has been examined within a reasonable period. They pointed out, that the applicant ’ s lawyers have requested to adjourn the hearing because of their inability to appear before the court on the initially scheduled date. This motion has been the only reason for rescheduling of the appeal hearing.

10 . The applicant submitted that the initial date of the appeal hearing has been outside of the reasonable time even prior to rescheduling the hearing upon his lawyers ’ request.

11 . The Court recalls that although the number of days taken to conduct the relevant proceedings is obviously an important element, it is not necessarily in itself decisive for the question of whether a decision has been given with the requisite speed. What is taken into account is the diligence shown by the authorities, the delay attributable to the applicant, and any factors causing a delay for which the State cannot be held responsible. The question whether the right to a speedy decision has been respected must thus be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Manerov v. Russia , no. 49848/10, § 42, 5 January 2016). In a number of cases against Russia, which concerned, like the present case, the length of detention appeal review, it found that the “speediness” requirement had been breached when such proceedings lasted between twenty six and thirty six days and the entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see Mamedova v. Russia , no. 7064/05, § 96 , 1 June 2006 ; Ignatov v. Russia , no. 27193/02, §§ 112-14, 24 May 2007; Lebedev v. Russia , no. 4493/04, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007 ; and Lamazhyk v. Russia , no. 20571/04, §§ 104 ‑ 06, 30 July 2009).

12 . The Court observes that in the present case the statement of appeal against the decision of 3 April 2018 had been lodged by one of the applicant ’ s lawyers on 5 April 2018. The appeal hearing initially scheduled for 26 April 2018, was rescheduled for 17 May 2018, upon the motion of the applicant ’ s lawyers. Accordingly, in present case the applicant and his lawyers not only had not attempted to expedite the appeal proceedings, but largely contributed to their duration. To the contrary, the Court does not discern any factors which would indicate that the authorities were responsible for the delays or otherwise failed to demonstrate the requisite diligence.

13 . In the light of the above conclusion and having considered the available material, the Court concludes that the present application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 May 2021 .

{signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli Deputy Registrar President