THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KIM AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 10682/18 and 23 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

1 April 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kim 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 Liv Tigerstedt , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 11 March 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 applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

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

THE LAW

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

6 . The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no. 10682/18 whereby they acknowledged that on several occasions during the period from 4 June to 29 August 2017, the applicant had been transported, to and from the courthouse, in conditions incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, and that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint about the inadequate conditions of transport in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 1,000 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 this 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, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

9 . The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 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. 10682/18 in the part concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy regarding that complaint .

14 . The applicant s complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long . They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read s 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.”

15 . As regards application no. 13641/18 in the part concerning the period of the applicant ’ s detention from 29 December 2016 to 12 April 2017 and relying on the documents submitted by the parties, the Court notes that on 29 December 2016 the applicant was found guilty of organisation of illegal gambling and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He subsequently served his prison sentence until 1 2 April 2017 when his conviction was quashed by the appellate court and the case was remitted for re-trial. Accordingly, the period of the applicant ’ s detention from 29 December 2016 to 12 April 2017 falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

16 . In this connection the Court reiterates that Article 5 § 3 of the Convention does not apply to situations amounting to “lawful detention after conviction by a competent court” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for example, Kushnir v. Ukraine , no. 42184/09, § 157, 11 December 2014). It follows that this part of the complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

17 . 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, KudÅ‚a 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).

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

19 . 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 applicant s ’ pre-trial detention was excessive.

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

21 . In some applications the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). 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, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages during court hearings; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters and conditions of detention during transport) .

22 . In application no. 19967/19 , the applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.

23 . T he Court has examined these complaints and finds that the applicant should avail himself of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).

24 . It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

25 . 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.”

26 . 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.

27 . 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,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , 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 1 April 2021 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Darian Pavli

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

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Period of detention

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

Length of detention

Specific defects

Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law

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

(in euros) [1]

10682/18

22/02/2018

Stanislav Ervestovich

KIM

31/03/1990

Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich

Astrakhan

02/06/2017 to

30/08/2017

Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan; Astrakhan Regional Court

2 month(s) and 29 day(s)

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

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - between IZ-1 of Astrakhan and the courthouse from 04/06/2017 to 29/08/2017: inadequate temperature, overcrowding, lack of fresh air,

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

1,000 (under the UD submitted by the Government)

300 (in respect of the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention)

11150/18

21/02/2018

Dmitriy Maksimovich ZOTKIN

08/09/1981

Shushpanov Sergey Aleksandrovich

Moscow

27/04/2016 to

05/03/2018

Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)

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

2,100

13419/18

09/03/2018

Niyaz Rinatovich VALITOV

09/01/1985

Khutiyev Amur Magomed Gireyevich

Khanty- Mansiysk

14/07/2017 to

10/07/2018

Khanty- Mansiysk District Court of the Khanty-Mansi Region;

Khanty-Mansi Regional Court

11 month(s) and 27 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

1,000

13641/18

07/03/2018

Oleg Vitalyevich PUDIKOV

14/05/1975

Beglaryan Vagan Sosovich

Taganrog

12/04/2017 to

17/04/2018

Taganrog Town Court,

Rostov Regional Court

1 year(s) and 6 day(s)

Collective detention orders;

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

1,100

37978/18

01/08/2018

Nataliya Dmitriyevna VERKHOVA

06/12/1969

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich

Rostov-on-Don

01/11/2017 to

11/09/2019

Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg,

St Petersburg

City Court,

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention orders of the Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 29/12/2017 and 02/02/2018 - upheld on appeal by the St Petersburg City Court on 14/02/2018 and 15/03/2018; detention orders of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow of 04/05/2018 and 03/08/2018 - upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 04/07/2018 and 29/08/2018; detention orders of the Moscow City Court of 30/10/2018 and 30/11/2018 - upheld on appeal by the Appeal Chamber of the Moscow City Court on 29/11/2018 and 31/01/2019

2,600

8539/19

11/01/2019

Sergey Aysarovich KONOVALOV

16/04/1984

08/06/2017 to

15/10/2018

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan; Nizhnekamsk Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

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

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

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

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on numerous occasions to and from detention facility (June 2017-December 2018); overcrowding, no handrails in a van, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient electric light

2,000

9062/19

06/02/2019

Andrey Igorevich KULIKOV

07/04/1974

Fedoseyev Viktor Viktorovich

Moscow

30/03/2016

to

17/07/2020

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, particularly as the case progressed;

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

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against detention order of 13/07/2018 was considered on 07/08/2018

4,900

9579/19

13/02/2019

Vladimir Borisovich LUNDGREN

06/04/1956

Mirova Raisiya Mindubayevna

Moscow

18/09/2016 to

12/12/2018

Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow; Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 25 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Complaint about excessive length of appellate review of the applicant ’ s detention extension (first-instance court on 03/07/2018, appeal on 27/08/2018)

2,800

10185/19

01/02/2019

Lev Mikhaylovich LUNIN

14/06/1981

27/01/2016 to

01/06/2019

Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court; Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 6 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

3,500

11558/19

25/02/2019

Pavel Anatolyevich CHERNYAVSKIY

05/05/1983

Novikova Alina Igorevna

Novosibirsk

10/07/2017

pending

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court

More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 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 conduct the proceedings with due diligence

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of the placement into a metal cage during court hearings;

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms during the hearings held at the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Novosibirsk on several occasions; since 26/07/2017; the proceedings are still pending

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on numerous occasions to participate in investigative actions or court hearings; van; overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air; since 26/07/2017; the proceedings are still pending

9,750

13986/19

28/02/2019

Yevgeniy Viktorovich GOREV

26/02/1985

09/08/2018 to

13/12/2018

Vologda Regional Court;

Vologda Town Court;

Cherepovets Town Court

4 month(s) and 5 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; the courts did not take into account the applicant ’ s personal situation, such as stable family environment, his having been a caretaker for two minor children, permanent employment and residence, no previous criminal record, reducing the risks of his absconding or reoffending; the courts made no considerations of the alternative measures of restraint

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 09/11/2018 to 03/12/2018; inadequate conditions of detention in transit cells in courts on 10, 13, and 29 August 2018 and on 1 and

3 December 2018;

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms from 10/08/2018 to 13/12/2018 before the Cherepovets Town Court and Vologda Town Court and before the Vologda Regional Court;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of placement into metal cages

9,750

14060/19

20/02/2019

Pavel Aleksandrovich CHEPURKIN

23/06/1979

Motchenko Lina Fedorovna

Nevinnomyssk

15/05/2014

pending

Nevinomyssk Town Court;

Stavropol Regional Court

More than

6 year(s) and 19 day(s)

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 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

5,000

14487/19

05/03/2019

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich NAGORNYY

05/05/1981

Zyuzina Yevgeniya Mikhaylovna

Voronezh

05/09/2016

pending

Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh;

Voronezh Regional Court

More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 15 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

4,600

14824/19

22/02/2019

Marat Melsovich OGANESYAN

15/08/1970

Popov Dmitriy Eduardovich

St Petersburg

16/11/2016

pending

Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg,

St Petersburg City Court

More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 26 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 reducing the risks of absconding or obstructing, particularly as the case progressed

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the extension order of 04/07/2018 was examined on 13/09/2018

4 , 8 00

15225/19

06/03/2019

Andrey Anatolyevich NAZAROV

13/10/1971

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich

Rostov-on-Don

04/12/2018

pending

Leninskiy District Court of

Rostov-on-Don,

Rostov Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 7 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; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention

2,300

15333/19

07/03/2019

Farid Shavkatovich KRYYEV

07/08/1965

14/03/2017

pending

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 28 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, particularly as the case progressed and the evidence had been collected; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed

4,100

17280/19

06/03/2019

Denis Igorevich PASYSHIN

05/01/1984

Pasyshina Yuliya Yuryevna

Kislovodsk

17/04/2017 to

29/07/2019

Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Yessentuki

Town Court,

Stavropol Regional Court

2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s)

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

2,400

17813/19

18/02/2019

Vladimir Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV

14/10/1962

06/09/2018 to

23/04/2019

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court

7 month(s) and 18 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice

1,000

19967/19

03/04/2019

Boris Andreyevich TIMOFEYEV

04/08/1989

Belyayev Mikhail Aleksandrovich

Moscow

19/09/2018 to 14/10/2019

Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow,

Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and 26 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

1 ,1 00

20643/19

30/03/2019

Sergey Mikhaylovich NESTERENKO

04/07/1962

Yefimenko Anton Eduardovich

Moscow

15/11/2018

to

06/12/2019

Syktyvkar City Court,

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

1 year(s) and 22 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

1,100

21842/19

05/04/2019

Sergey Yuryevich SOBOLEV

08/12/1980

27/02/2018

pending

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 15 day(s)

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

3, 000

22051/19

12/04/2019

Kanshobi Muzarinovich AZHAKHOV

25/02/1952

Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna

Kazan

08/10/2018 to

29/08/2019

Nalchik Town Court of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya ; Supreme Court of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya

10 month(s) and 22 day(s)

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

1,000

22965/19

08/04/2019

Mikhail Vladimirovich BARINOV

13/01/1979

Khityanik Tatyana Nikolayevna

Kemerovo

11/02/2016 to

09/09/2019

Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo, Kemerovo Regional Court

3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 30 day(s)

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

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

3,700

23715/19

16/04/2019

Sergey Pavlovich YURIN

04/12/1978

Isayev Igor Aleksandrovich

Moscow

17/10/2018

pending

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 day(s)

Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;

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

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage during court hearing before the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 19/10/2018

9,750

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.