Search
document

Document text Analytics

KHUDYAKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

Doc ref: 44360/17;56930/17;57261/17;59102/17;59944/17;80185/17;81443/17 • ECHR ID: 001-183958

Document date: May 22, 2018

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 5

KHUDYAKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

Doc ref: 44360/17;56930/17;57261/17;59102/17;59944/17;80185/17;81443/17 • ECHR ID: 001-183958

Document date: May 22, 2018

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 22 May 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44360/17 Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern the applicants ’ right to liberty and security of person. The applicants were arrested on suspicion of different crimes. The courts placed them under house arrest. They allege that the courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 104-105, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). Some of the applicants also complain about delayed review of their appeals against house-arrest orders or the courts ’ refusal to examine their appeals (see, mutatis mutandis , Butusov v. Russia , no. 7923/04, §§ 29 ‑ 35, 22 December 2009, Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, §§ 148-56, 23 October 2012) and violation of the right to compensation for unjustified house arrest (see, mutatis mutandis , Chuprikov v. Russia , no. 17504/07, § 99, 12 June 2014).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Questions in respect of all applicants

(a) Was the length of the applicants ’ house arrest in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

(b) Having regard to the reasons expressly relied on by the domestic courts in the house-arrest orders, were the applicants ’ house arrest justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

(c) Did the authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicants, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

(d) Where the applicants ’ house arrest was extended after the date of the applicants ’ last letter to the Court, the parties are invited to indicate the overall length of the house arrest and the reasons for the extension and submit the relevant house-arrest orders.

2. Individual questions

Basiyeva v. Russia , no. 57261/17

(a) Did the appeal court comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention when examining the applicant ’ s appeal against the house-arrest order of 26 December 2016?

(b) Did the appeal court examine the applicant ’ s appeal of 29 October 2016 against the court decision issued on 26 October 2016?

Geryugov v. Russia , no. 59102/17

(a) Did the appeal court comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention when examining the applicant ’ s appeal against the house-arrest order of 29 May 2017?

(b) Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for house arrest in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

Ryleyeva v. Russia , no. 59944/17

Did the appeal court examine the applicant ’ s appeal against the house ‑ arrest order issued on 30 November 2016?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

44360/17

14/06/2017

Sergey Valeryevich KHUDYAKOV

30/09/1965

Tula

Viktor Maksiyevich MAYEVSKIY

56930/17

10/07/2017

Yana Mikhaylovna KUZNETSOVA

12/09/1971

Izhevsk

Aleksey Anatolyevich VASILYEV

57261/17

31/07/2017

Fariza Kazbekovna BASIYEVA

06/09/1989

Vladikavkaz

59102/17

08/08/2017

Valeriy Aslanbekovich GERYUGOV

23/03/1963

Cherkessk

Mikhail Aleksandrovich OSHEROV

59944/17

06/08/2017

Aleksandra Andreyevna RYLEYEVA

25/05/1991

Moscow

80185/17

11/11/2017

Andrey Petrovich IVASHKIN

05/01/1978

Krasnoyarsk

81443/17

26/11/2017

Konstantin Arkadyevich TOMENCHUK

03/11/1973

Tula

Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant