coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 62614/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Gayk Levonovich Sarkisyan (“the applicant”), on 23 September 2013. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr A. Anokhin and Ms M. Gordeyeva, lawyers practising in Astrakhan. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.  On 28 January 2016 the complaints concerning Article 5 § 3 and Article 5 § 4 were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 6.  In particular, the Government acknowledged that the applicant had remained in pre-trial detention for an excessively lengthy period in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 1,200 euros 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 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 judgement. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the abovementioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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. The declaration did not mention the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is detained in Togliatti, Samara Region.
7.  On 19 October 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing.
8.  On 20 October 2006 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara remanded the applicant in custody. The court held that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime, that he could abscond, commit crimes, destroy evidence, threaten witnesses or in any other way interfere with the investigation.
9.  On 18 December 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court reproduced the reasoning of the previous detention order. The court also indicated that the applicant had played a leading part in the criminal activities.
10.  On 15 February 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention on the ground that the investigation was still pending and it was necessary to conduct some investigative activities. The court further referred to the same grounds as in the previous detention orders.
11.  The Samara Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders.
12.  On 1 June 2007 the Bolshechernigovskiy District Court of the Samara Region convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to 11 years’ imprisonment and a fine. On 21 August 2007 the Samara Regional Court upheld his conviction on appeal.
6.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of different civil and criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
7.  All applicants obtained decisions of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, which found a violation of their right to a hearing within reasonable time (see appended table for details of each civil proceedings and Constitutional Court’s decisions). The court, additionally, declared that the applicants were entitled to the non-pecuniary damages sought, in accordance with Article 90 of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 14, Article 90, below).
8.  All the applicants filed requests with the Commission for Compensation for payment of non-pecuniary damages.
9.  On 14 October 2010 the Commission for Compensation offered to pay Ms Prohaska Prodanić RSD 60,000 (at the time approximately EUR 600) for non-pecuniary damage incurred and RSD 25,000 for costs and expenses. She refused to accept that payment as the Commission did not specify the deadline by which the sum would be paid. On 15 September 2015, the Ministry of Justice paid her RSD 85,000.
10.  The applicant V. Tomić contacted the Commission for Compensation on several occasions and requested the payment of non-pecuniary damage. It would appear that he had received no response.
11.  On 16 March 2011 the Commission for Compensation offered to pay Mr D. Trpković RSD 35,000 (at the time approximately EUR 350), but he refused to accept this amount, deeming it insufficient.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lived in the Sverdlovsk Region.
5.  On 6 April 2012 the Leninskiy District Court in Nizhniy Tagil issued a detention order in respect of the applicant who had been charged with murder and had absconded. The order was to be valid for an initial period of two months following the applicant’s arrest.
6.  On 19 February 2013 the applicant was apprehended in China and extradited to Russia.
7.  On 30 April 2013 the Leninskiy district prosecutor asked the District Court to extend the applicant’s detention for a further two months. On the same day the District Court granted the application in part. It extended the authorised period of detention “for one month, until 19 May”.
8.  The applicant filed an appeal. He complained, in particular, that the initial two-month detention period had expired already on 19 April 2013 and that his subsequent detention had been unlawful.
9.  On 10 June 2013 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court rejected the appeal. On 26 September 2013 a judge of the Regional Court refused the applicant leave to appeal to the regional cassation instance.
10.  On 4 March 2014 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused the applicant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The judge noted, in particular, that the belated filing of an application for an extension of the authorised period of detention was not a ground for varying the custodial measure.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Yambol.
5.  The applicant and his brother co-owned a house with a yard and a garage in Yambol.
6.  By a decision of the mayor of 31 January 1983 the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a residential building. The decision, based on section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), stated that the applicant and his brother were to be compensated with flats in a building which the municipality intended to construct.
7.  On an unspecified date the flats were constructed and delivered to the applicant and his brother.
8.  On 13 July 1994 the mayor modified the decision of 31 January 1983, stating that the two brothers were also to be compensated with a common garage. The applicant’s brother informed the mayor that he renounced his right to compensation with a garage in the applicant’s favour.
9.  By a supplementary decision of 30 May 1995, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor held that the applicant was to be compensated with the right to build a garage on a municipal land and determined the exact location of the future garage. The applicant did not appeal against that decision and apparently prepared to start the construction works.
10.  By a decision of 9 October 2002 the mayor modified the previous decision of 30 May 1995, indicating another municipal plot of land where the future garage was to be built, as it had turned out that the previous one was not owned by the municipality. That decision was not appealed against by the applicant, but was eventually set aside by the Yambol regional governor after it had been contested by third persons.
11.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant brought a tort action against the Yambol municipality, claiming a wrongful failure on its part to provide him with a garage. The action was dismissed, the final judgment being given by the Supreme Administrative Court on 30 March 2011. The domestic courts held that no unlawful inactivity on the part of the authorities had been established, neither had it been shown that the applicant had sustained any damage.
12.  In June 2011 the applicant agreed to receive compensation in cash in lieu of the garage due to him. It appears that the municipality had been offering such a solution since 2007. The compensation in cash was paid to the applicant on 4 April 2012.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Samara.
5.  At about 8.35 p.m. on 14 October 2009 the applicant was apprehended by officers of the Federal Service for Drug Control (ФСKН, “the drugs police”) during a test purchase of drugs from him. According to the applicant, he was brought to their premises at around 11 p.m. His account was corroborated by two drug police officers and two attesting witnesses. An arrest record was not compiled. Furthermore, at around 2 a.m. on the following day he was put in a cell that had not bed or stool, light, lavatory or running water, and was smeared with dirt and faeces. During his detention he had not been provided with food or drink, or permitted to use the toilet, but had had to urinate in a plastic bottle. At 6.30 p.m. a criminal case was instituted against the applicant, and thirty minutes later an investigator drew the arrest record, thus formally remanding the applicant in custody. At 11.55 p.m. on the same day he was transferred to a temporary detention centre.
6.  On 16 October 2009 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara remanded the applicant in custody. In particular, the court mentioned the following arguments: seriousness and nature of charges; previous conviction not being expunged; absence of “regular source of income”; hence possibility of continuing criminal activities or absconding or obstructing justice in any other manner. The applicant did not appeal.
7.  On 11 December 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2010 finding that the grounds on which the preventive measure had previously been imposed still persisted and there was no reason to vary the preventive measure. Additionally, the court mentioned that the applicant had permanent place of residence and employment but it further stated that the applicant “did not have a regular source of income”.
8.  On 22 December 2009 the Samara Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the district court. The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing unlike both the applicant and his counsel.
9.  On 12 February 2010 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Samara found the applicant guilty of selling large quantities of narcotics and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment in a strict-security institution.
10.  On 4 May 2010 the Samara Regional Court upheld the conviction. The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing whereas both the applicant and his counsel were absent.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently serving a sentence in a correctional colony in the Tambov Region.
5.  On 17 July 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On the following day the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow authorised his detention.
6.  On 6 September 2007 the Taganskiy District Court extended the detention. That detention order was upheld on appeal on 22 October 2007 by the Moscow City Court.
7.  Another extensions of detention followed on 16 October 2007 and 11 December 2007. The applicant appealed against both detention orders.
8.  On 17 January 2008 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The conviction became final on 19 March 2008.
9.  On 2 July 2008, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the failure to examine his appeal, the City Court informed him that his appeal against the detention order of 16 October 2007 was not received by the City Court. However, by a letter of 22 August 2008 the City Court forwarded the applicant’s appeal statement lodged on 17 October 2007 to the District Court, requiring it to perform procedural steps necessary to initiate the appeal proceedings. The City Court also informed the applicant that his appeal complaint of 17 October 2007 was mistakenly attached to another case-file.
10.  No further information on organisation of the appeal hearing against the detention order of 16 October 2007 was provided.
4.  The applicant company is a limited liability company incorporated under Croatian law, which has its seat in Zagreb.
5.  On 21 June 2000 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the Croatian Health Insurance Fund seeking payment of 11,500 Croatian kunas (HRK)[1] which had been unjustifiably seized from the company’s bank account for the alleged failure to pay health insurance contributions.
6.  The Municipal Court scheduled sixteen hearings of which six were adjourned (in the period between 10 May 2005 and 3 November 2009) at the request of the applicant company.
7.  The applicant company’s director failed to attend the hearing scheduled for 6 November 2006 without giving any reasons for his absence. Therefore, by a decision of the same day, the court decided to suspend the proceedings (mirovanje postupka) pursuant to the law. The proceedings continued upon the request of the applicant company of 21 February 2007.
8.  The statutory conditions for the suspension of proceedings were again fulfilled on 2 March 2010 when the applicant company’s director attended the hearing but failed to engage in litigation. Accordingly, on the same date the Municipal Court issued a decision declaring that the applicant company’s action was to be considered withdrawn, pursuant to the law.
9.  By a decision of 17 September 2010 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant company against the first-instance decision. The County Court’s decision was served on the applicant company on 3 January 2011.
10.  Meanwhile, on 1 April 2010 the applicant company lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court, complaining about the excessive length of the above civil proceedings.
11.  On 3 September 2010 the applicant company’s request was forwarded to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
12.  By a decision of 13 July 2011 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant company’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded it HRK 5,000[2] in compensation. It held that (a) even though there were no substantial periods of inactivity the mere fact that the Municipal Court had scheduled sixteen hearings suggested that the proceedings had not been conducted efficiently, and (b) the conduct of the applicant company significantly contributed to their length (see paragraphs 6-8 above).
13.  The applicant company appealed.
14.  By a decision of 6 September 2012 a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and served its decision on the applicant company on 13 November 2012.
15.  By a decision of 31 January 2013 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared inadmissible the applicant company’s subsequent constitutional complaint, and served that decision on the company on 23 March 2013. The Constitutional Court held that the contested second-instance decision was not open to constitutional review.
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Kragujevac.
6.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant filed a civil claim in criminal proceedings as injured party.
7.  On 18 November 2010 the Kragujevac Court of First Instance delivered the first instance judgment.
8.  On 20 October 2011 the Kragujevac Appellate Court delivered the second instance judgment. This judgment was delivered to the applicant on 7 November 2011.
9.  On 18 February 2014 the Constitutional Court of Serbia rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal.
4.  The applicants were born in 1964 and 1975 respectively and lived in Moscow.
5.  On 5 April 2005 the Presnenskiy District Court in Moscow found the applicants and their co-defendants guilty of extortion and gave them a custodial sentence. On 31 October 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.
6.  On 26 January 2006 the Presidium of the City Court quashed the appeal judgment of 31 October 2005 for formal defects and ordered a new appeal hearing. It did not mention the matter of the defendants’ detention. No ordinary appeal lay against that decision but the second applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the City Court’s failure to render a decision on his measure. On 13 December 2006 a judge of the Supreme Court rejected his complaint, finding as follows:
“The fact that [the Presidium of the City Court] unjustifiably (необоснованно) omitted to rule on the preventive measure is not a ground for setting aside its decision because it appears from the ... City Court’s decision of 26 July 2006 and the ... District Court’s decision of 31 August 2006 that the matter of detention was addressed in subsequent judicial decision which maintained the custodial measure in respect of [the second applicant].”
7.  On 26 July 2006 the City Court held a new appeal hearing and quashed the initial conviction for formal defects, ordering a re-trial. It also held that there were no grounds for varying the preventive measure and maintained it without setting a time-limit or relying on any provisions of the domestic law.
8.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court held a preliminary hearing and fixed the trial date for 31 August. It maintained the custodial measure, without citing any reasons, references to the domestic law or time-limits.
9.  On 31 August 2006 the District Court returned the case file to prosecutor and extended the applicants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges but without setting a time-limit. On 30 October 2006 the City Court rejected the applicants’ appeals against the extension order.
10.  On 16 January 2007 the District Court extended the applicants’ detention until 28 February 2007, relying on the gravity of the charges and unspecified circumstances that indicated a risk of perverting the course of justice. On 21 February 2007 the City Court quashed the detention order of 16 January because of an incorrect date in its text. It maintained the custodial measure without giving reasons. On 27 February 2007 the District Court issued an identically worded detention order which was upheld on appeal on 16 April.
11.  On the same date the District Court granted a further extension of the applicants’ detention until 30 April 2007, relying on the gravity of the charges. The extension order was upheld on appeal on 25 June 2007.
12.  Further extensions were approved by the District Court on 27 and 28 April (upheld on appeal on 25 June), 8 and 16 May (upheld on appeal on 23 July), and 13 June 2007 (upheld on appeal on 1 August).
13.  On 11 October 2007 the District Court found the defendants guilty and gave them custodial sentences.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the Leningrad Region.
5.  On 25 February 2009 an investigator charged the applicant with kidnapping in absentia and put his name of the international list of fugitives from justice. On the same day the investigator asked the Vasileostrovskiy District Court in St Petersburg to detain the applicant on remand.
6.  On 2 March 2009 the District Court granted the investigator’s application for a detention order, referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant.
7.  On 22 July 2009 the applicant was apprehended in the Vologda Region and transferred to a remand prison in St Petersburg.
8.  On 30 July 2009 the applicant was interviewed and received a copy of the charge sheet. He also submitted an appeal against the detention order of 2 March.
9.  On 1 September 2009 the St Petersburg City Court heard the appeal and set aside the detention order, finding that the failure to follow the legal procedure for putting the applicant’s name on the list of fugitives from justice amounted to a “fundamental breach” of the rules of criminal procedure. It ordered a new examination of the detention matter but did not specify whether or not the applicant should remain in custody. As it happened, the applicant was not released.
10.  On 18 September 2009 the District Court refused the investigator’s request for a detention order. It held, firstly, that the gravity of the charges was not a sufficient reason for detaining the applicant and, secondly, that the procedure for putting his name on the list of fugitives from justice had not been followed. The applicant was released in the courtroom.
11.  On 21 October 2009 the District Court found the applicant guilty and gave him a custodial sentence conditional on four years’ probation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow.
5.  On 11 January 1999 the parish of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos (the “Parish”) brought a civil claim against the applicant and her family claiming title to the land plot de facto used by the latter.
6.  In May 1999 the applicant brought a counterclaim seeking annulment of the Parish’s title to the land plot.
7.  On 23 November 1999 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Parish’s claim and dismissed the counterclaim lodged by the applicant.
8.  On 18 February 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 23 November 1999 on appeal.
9.  In July 2000 the city prosecutor’s office, upon the applicant’s request, asked for the supervisory review of the above judgments.
10.  On 24 August 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 23 November 1999 and 18 February 2000 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
11.  It appears that both parties amended their claims in part for several times. The applicant eventually sought recognition of her property title to the land plot in question.
12.  On 4 May 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in full. The Parish appealed.
13.  On 11 August 2005 the City Court upheld the judgment of 4 May 2005 on appeal.
14.  It appears the judgment of 4 May 2005 was not enforced.
15.  On 25 December 2005 the Parish asked for the supervisory review of the judgments in the applicant’s favour.
16.  On 13 July 2006 the Presidium of the City Court quashed the judgments of 4 May and 11 August 2005 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
17.  On 31 January 2007 the proceedings discontinued due to the absence of the parties.