Communicated on 1 December 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 63392/09 Aleksey Veniaminovich SOKOLOV against Russia lodged on 1 December 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Veniaminovich Sokolov , is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Yekaterinburg. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Shukhardin , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

On 13 May 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On the following day the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court in Yekaterinburg remanded him in custody until 12 July 2009.

On 13 July 2009 the District Court granted a two-month extension of the detention period. However, on 31 July 2009 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the extension order as it had been issued outside the initial two-month period, and ordered the applicant ’ s release.

The applicant was not released. He was not allowed to leave the police ward and was re-arrested on the charge of theft. The arrest record mentioned the charge, without specifying when and where the theft had been committed and why the applicant was suspected of it.

On 2 August 2009 the District Court adjourned the detention hearing for seventy-two hours, at the request from the applicant ’ s counsel. On 4 August 2009 the District Court issued a detention order which did not set a time-limit for the applicant ’ s detention or give any assessment to the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant.

On 2 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal.

Further extensions of the applicant ’ s detention were granted by the Leninskiy District Court on 29 September, 20 October and 2 November 2009. The latter extension order was issued in the absence of the parties. On 25 November 2009 the Regional Court found that extension order unlawful and set it aside, but extended the applicant ’ s detention for a future period.

On 23 December 2009 the Bogdanovich Town Court in the Sverdlovsk Region opened the trial and extended the applicant ’ s detention. The applicant ’ s appeal against the extension order was rejected by the Regional Court on 11 June 2010.

On 2 March and 22 April 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant ’ s detention. Each time the court relied on the gravity of the charges and the applicant ’ s previous criminal record. The appeals against the orders were rejected on 30 June and 11 June, respectively.

Throughout the trial the applicant was held in a metal cage.

On 13 May 2010 the applicant was found guilty of theft and armed robbery and sentenced to five years ’ imprisonment. On 18 August 2010 the Regional Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years ’ imprisonment.

On 24 June 2010 the applicant ’ s mother died. His request to be allowed to attend the funeral was rejected by the governor of the IZ-66/1 remand prison and upheld by the courts. When his father also died on 5 November 2010, the director of the correctional colony in Sosnovoborsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region also refused his request for a short-term leave of absence.

The Sosnovoborsk colony was located some 2,400 kilometres away from Yekaterinburg where the applicant ’ s family lived.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that –

- he was held in a metal cage during the trial;

- his detention after 12 July 2009 and at least until 29 September 2009 was unlawful;

- the reasons for his detention were not relevant or sufficient;

- the appeals against the detention orders were not considered speedily;

- he was not allowed to attend the funeral first of his mother and later of his father;

- he was sent to serve the sentence in a remote facility.

Questions to the parties

Was the applicant ’ s detention in a metal cage during the trial compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?

Was the applicant ’ s detention from 12 July to 29 September 2009 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, what was the basis for his detention from 12 to 13 July 2009? Was the detention order of 13 July 2009 ex facie invalid (see Khudoyorov v. Russia , no. 6847/02, § 129, ECHR 2005 ‑ X (extracts))? At the hearing on 4 August 2009, did the court verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” against him?

Was the applicant ’ s detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

Were the appeals against the detention or extension orders of 31 July, 2 November and 23 December 2009 and 2 March and 22 April 2010 considered “speedily”, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

Was it compatible with Article 8 of the Convention that the applicant was denied the opportunity to attend the funeral of both parents (see Lind v. Russia , no. 25664/05, §§ 92-99, 6 December 2007)?

Was it compatible with Article 8 of the Convention that the applicant was sent to serve his sentence located more than 2,000 kilometres away from where his family lived (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 835-851, 25 July 2013)?