Communicated on 15 February 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 14885/15 Petr Olegovich ZHURIN against Russia lodged on 17 March 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

Charges of bank fraud were brought against the applicant and he was detained in custody.

The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness and length of the applicant ’ s detention on remand (Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention), lack of speedy judicial review of his detention (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention) and non-availability of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the applicant ’ s detention in all eged contravention of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (Article 5 § 5 of the Convention).

The application further concerns the applicant ’ s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the examination of the issue of his detention and lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect (Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s placement in a metal cage during the proceedings before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow concerning the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , (nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113 ‑ 39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017)?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention regarding his confinement in the metal cage, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above, § 87)?

3. Was the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? In particular, did the provisions of Article 108 § 1.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation prohibiting pre-trial detention of those suspected or accused of non-violent crimes committed in the sphere of business activities meet the “quality of law” requirement? Namely, was the definition of the term “business activities” contained therein sufficiently precise and foreseeable in its application?

The parties are requested to provide statistics and examples of cases where the national courts applied Article 108 § 1.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (the parties are to provide full texts of the court decisions as well as a table of citations from the court decisions demonstrating what are considered as business activities).

4. Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention on remand in breach of the

“ reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were there “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the applicant ’ s continued detention (see Zherebin v. Russia , no. 51445/09, §§ 45-63, 24 March 2016)?

5. Were the appeal proceedings against the detention orders of 18 September 2014 and 13 November 2014 issued by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant ’ s appeals examined “speedily”?

6. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Alekhin v. Russia , no. 10638/08 , §§ 146-55, 30 July 2009) ?