4.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1976 respectively and are detained in Kharp. 5.  The applicants were co-defendants in domestic criminal proceedings. 6.  In July 2003 the applicant was arrested in the town of Syktyvkar on suspicion of committing a criminal offence. He was ordered not to leave his town of residence. He was subsequently detained on an unspecified date. His detention was later extended. On 29 January 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court extended his detention until 19 February 2004. On 18 February 2004 the prosecuting authorities completed their pre-trial investigation and submitted the case for trial. On 10 March 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court extended the applicant’s detention. On 21 April 2004 the trial judge returned the criminal case to the prosecutor and dismissed the defence’s application for release, thereby maintaining detention on remand. 7.  The applicant was also accused of committing a criminal offence in the town of Ivanovo. In April 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court ordered his detention in relation to this criminal offence too. 8.  Subsequently, the related proceedings were pursued before the courts in the town of Ivanovo. 9.  On 3 August 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo extended the applicant’s detention “pending investigation” (under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – hereinafter “the CCrP”) until 5 October 2004. 10.  On 13 September 2004 the District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing in the criminal case and also held that the applicant should remain in detention, pending trial (Article 228 of the CCrP). 11.  In December 2004 a local newspaper published an article recounting the relevant events and also indicating that the accused should be presumed innocent until proved guilty. 12.  In the meantime, it appears that the district judge returned the case to the prosecutor, which entailed, apparently, modifying the legal basis for the applicant’s detention pending trial (Article 255 of the CCrP) or pending investigation (Article 109 of the CCrP); this in turn necessitated the re‑calculation of the respective periods of detention. 13.  In particular, on 20 December 2004 the judge decided to return the criminal case to the prosecutor (Article 237 of the CCrP) and held that the applicant should remain in detention. The applicant appealed. On 14 February 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment. 14.  On 18 February 2005 the prosecutor received the case file. 15.  On 9 March 2005 the prosecutor lodged an application for a fresh detention order to be issued (apparently under Article 109 of the CCrP, since the case was again “pending investigation”). 16.  On 14 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 June 2005. On 24 March 2005 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. These court decisions were examined on 3 March 2006 by the Presidium of the Regional Court on supervisory review. The Presidium upheld them, also stating that the applicant’s detention between October 2004 and March 2005 had been lawful. 17.  In the meantime, the applicant lodged an application for release. On 1 February 2006 the District Court dismissed it. The applicant appealed. On 23 March 2006 the Regional Court stated that this decision was not appealable. 18.  In the meantime, on 20 February 2006, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 May 2006. On 23 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld this extension. 19.  It appears that, in the meantime, in February 2006 the court again returned the case to the prosecutor. Apparently, the case was resubmitted to the court in or around August 2006. 20.  On 21 December 2006 the applicant was convicted of an armed robbery undertaken by a group of people. On 14 June 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. 21.  Mr Mityanin brought a civil claim under Article 1070 § 1 and Article 1100 of the Civil Code for compensation because there had been no valid court decision authorising his detention from 20 February until 10 March 2004 (see above). By a judgment of 4 October 2012 the Town Court ruled that (i) during the relevant period the case against the applicant had been pending before the trial court and that his continued detention had thus been lawful; and (ii) in the absence of any element of illegality there was no legal basis for awarding compensation. It stated as follows:
“The detention matter had been determined by a court and in compliance with the rules that had been applicable at the time. The staff of the detention centre had no legal reasons for releasing [the applicant] after 19 February 2004, including in view of the absence of any information from the prosecutor that the case had been submitted for trial to the Town Court. Consequently, [the applicant’s] detention from 19 February to 27 April 2004 was lawful. In addition, this court takes into account the decision of 21 April 2004 in the part concerning the dismissal of the application for release and the decision to maintain detention on remand. Hence, as regards the object of this case, there has been no violation of the rights or freedoms (including those under Article 5 of the Convention) ... Since the detention was lawful, there is no lawful basis for compensation on account of any non-pecuniary damage ...” 22.  On 27 December 2012 the Komi Regional Court upheld the judgment.
“Under Article 227 §§ 1 and 3 of the CCrP receiving a criminal case a judge must forward it if another court is competent, to list a preliminary hearing or list a hearing. Where a case concerns a defendant who is detained on remand, a judge must decide within fourteen days. Pursuant to Article 228 § 3 of the CCrP a judge must also determine whether the preventive measure should be amended or cancelled ... It follows from those rules that as soon as a criminal case is submitted for trial the detention matter is decided under Article 227 of the CCrP. The authorised period of detention had not yet expired when the case was submitted for trial. The detention matter was then determined by the judge within the applicable time-limits. Thus, there is no legal basis for awarding compensation.
Pursuant to Article 61 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court is bound in respect of the circumstances that were ascertained by a final and enforceable court decision in another case. Those circumstances cannot be contested during the examination of another case between the same parties ... Thus, it was correctly taken into account that the Regional Court of the Komi Republic had stated in its decision of 25 May 2012 (in reply to an application for release) that the detention from 19 February to 27 April 2004 had been lawful.” 23.  On 12 January 2008 the authorities in Syktyvkar opened criminal proceedings against the applicants and others under Article 210 of the Criminal Code in respect of the creation and functioning of a “criminal community” (преступное сообщество). 24.  On an unspecified date Mr Mityanin was formally charged with this criminal offence. 25.  On 18 January 2008 a local newspaper published an article entitled “Boxers in detention”, stating that it was the first time that a criminal case under this provision of the Criminal Code had been initiated in the region and that it concerned well-known sportsmen. 26.  The article read as follows:
“This is the first time that the law-enforcement authorities of the region have filed charges against a group of former sportsmen, [having accused] them of running a criminal community.
...
Officially, they are all businessmen, sports benefactors or organisers of various sports events. Unofficially, the law-enforcement authorities believe, they are members of the so-called Loginovskaya Gang, which was created in the second half of the 1990s ...
According to information [issued by] the press office of the FSB [the Federal Security Service], the gang members devised an efficient mechanism of securing regular income by way of extortion from businessmen. Those who did not cooperate were subjected to various forms of pressure, such as arson in respect of businesses or vehicles, or violence ...
The law-enforcement authorities have been working on the gang for several years. On 12 January 2008 the investigating unit of the regional department of the FSB initiated criminal proceedings against the gang leaders and active members. They are accused of committing an offence under Article 210 of the Criminal Code (“Running a criminal community”).
Lawyers say that this Article of the Criminal Code is rarely used because it is exceedingly difficult to prove the running of a criminal community. In our region this is the first time it is being used ...
According to information [issued by] the press office of the regional department of the FSB, two more persons – [the first applicant’s first name and last name] and [the second applicant’s first name and last name] – are already serving prison terms for other offences. In December 2006 the Ivanovo [District Court] convicted them of robbery. [The first applicant’s last name] was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment ...
The arrest of the suspects received wide coverage in the Ezhvinskiy district of Syktyvkar ...” 27.  The article was accompanied by photographs of the arrested people, including the applicant. 28.  Mr Mityanin brought court proceedings under Articles 152 and 152.1 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 43-45 below) against the newspaper. According to the applicant, it was stated in the article that he had been an active member of the so-called “Loginovskaya Gang”, which had lived off income from the extortion and “protection” of businesses, with recourse to violence against, and the destruction of the property of, business people who refused to cooperate. The applicant sought, inter alia, a refutation (опровержение) of the allegation that he was an active member of the criminal community, considering this statement to be defamatory. According to the applicant, the author of the article (who referred to official sources) implied that the applicant had been a member of a notorious “gang”, and that he was therefore guilty of committing an offence under Article 210 of the Criminal Code. 29.  By a judgment of 17 October 2011, the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic dismissed Mr Mityanin’s claims. The court considered that the applicant had not proved that the information in the article had been untrue, and that that information had corresponded to the fact that there was an ongoing criminal investigation in respect of, inter alia, the applicant. A successful defamation claim would require that the following conditions be met cumulatively: (i) the information in question had been disseminated to at least one other person; (ii) the content of such information had tarnished the dignity, honour or business reputation of the person concerned; and (iii) the information did “not correspond to reality” (that is to say it [was] untruthful). The court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish the falsity of the contested information. Lastly, noting that a newspaper was not required to verify information coming from an official source, the court ruled that the case disclosed an exception to the requirement that consent had to be given for the publishing of information relating to one’s private life and one’s photograph. In the court’s view, as required in order for a statutory exception to be made, the case disclosed “an interest relating to public and State security”, while the publication had been aimed at informing the public of the “appearance of a person in relation to a criminal investigation”.
The judgment also reads as follows:
“Having obtained the investigator’s approval, the press officer of the regional department of the Federal Security Service provided the respondent with information about the criminal investigation opened in respect of the claimant and [the] implication [of his involvement] in the criminal community ... The investigating authority was interested in receiving further information, in particular as regards possible eyewitnesses to the crimes. Thus, the respondent was given the above‑mentioned information and [the applicant’s] photograph.” 30.  Mr Mityanin lodged an appeal against the Syktyvkar Town Court’s judgment. On 8 December 2011 the Komi Regional Court upheld the judgment, referring to the fact that the newspaper had acquired the contested information from an official source, had referred to this source in the article, and had merely recounted this information. The appeal court pointed out that the information had been true and non-defamatory, since it had “corresponded to the information [adduced by] the preliminary investigation”; it was important to apprise the public of the appearance of the person in relation to a case receiving media coverage. 31.  In the meantime, in a separate defamation case the applicant challenged another article (apparently with similar content) published by another newspaper in April 2011. By a default judgment (заочное решение – that is to say without hearing either of the parties) of 7 September 2011, the Town Court considered that the respondent had failed to prove the veracity of the impugned statements; the court awarded Mr Mityanin 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the newspaper to publish a refutation. It appears that this judgment was not appealed against, and thus became final. The applicant subsequently referred to the judgment of 7 September 2011 in the course of the criminal trial, alleging a violation of the presumption of innocence. The court refused to allow a copy of the judgment to be placed in the case file, considering, inter alia, that the findings of the civil court were irrelevant for the determination of the criminal charge. 32.  It appears that on 23 June 2014 the applicant was convicted of several counts of multiple offences (including murder and membership of a criminal community) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant submits that in the statement of appeal he and his co-defendants raised certain arguments relating to the above-mentioned publication. On 10 July 2015 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment. 33.  On 4 December 2003 the applicant was arrested in the town of Syktyvkar on suspicion of committing robbery and theft in Syktyvkar. On 5 December 2003 the Syktyvkar Town Court authorised his detention. On 29 January 2004 his detention was extended until 19 February 2004. On an unspecified date, the prosecutor completed the investigation and submitted the case for trial. On 21 April 2004 the judge returned the case to the prosecutor, and held that the preventive measure of detention should remain unchanged. On 27 April 2004 an investigator ordered the applicant’s release in exchange for an undertaking from him not to leave his area of residence. However, the applicant was not released. 34.  In separate proceedings, in March 2004 the applicant was charged in relation to an armed robbery in the town of Ivanovo. On 29 April 2004 the Ukhtinskiy Town Court of the Komi Republic authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation in relation to this robbery. The applicant did not appeal. 35.  The applicant was then transferred to the town of Ivanovo for further proceedings. 36.  On 24 June 2004 his detention was extended until 5 August 2004; on 3 August 2004 his detention was extended until 5 October 2004. On 7 September 2004 the case was submitted to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Ivanovo Region. On 13 September 2004 the District Court ordered that the applicant’s detention pending trial be continued. Later on, the judge returned the case to the prosecutor. It was resubmitted to the judge on an unspecified date. On 20 December 2004 the District Court again returned the criminal case to the prosecutor and, inter alia, ordered him to redraft the bill of indictment. The District Court also ordered that the applicant be kept in detention pending the prosecutor’s further actions. On 14 February 2005 the Regional Court upheld the above-mentioned decisions. The applicant’s detention was extended in 2005. In August 2005 the criminal case was resubmitted for trial before the District Court. It appears that in February 2006 the court again returned the case to the prosecutor. Apparently, the case was resubmitted to the court in or around August 2006. 37.  On 21 December 2006 the applicant was convicted of a number of criminal offences. He was then transferred to a prison in the Komi Republic. 38.  In 2012 the applicant lodged complaints concerning the lawfulness of his detention from 19 February until 29 April 2004. The relevant prosecutor’s office refused to deal with this complaint. He challenged it under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP” – see paragraph 53 below) and asked to be taken to a court hearing from the detention facility. The Syktyvkar Town Court replied to the motion by indicating that the motion would be dealt with at a hearing on the merits. By a judgment of 24 September 2012 the Town Court heard the respondent and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court indicated in the judgment that it was appropriate to examine the case without the claimant being present because the applicable legislation made no provision for conveying a claimant to a court hearing. As to the merits of the complaint, the court indicated that the applicant’s complaint had been dealt with the appropriate official, in compliance with the applicable procedure and that the official had provided reasons for dismissing the complaint. The applicant appealed; on 3 December 2012 the Komi Regional Court upheld this judgment. 39.  The applicant also brought proceedings (again under Chapter 25 of the CCP) against the head of the relevant remand centre, who had kept him there allegedly unlawfully during the contested period. On 24 September 2012 the same judge of the Town Court heard the respondent and rejected the applicant’s claims in that case too. Having listed the relevant provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, the CCrP and the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the procedural history of the criminal case (see paragraphs 33-34 above), the court concluded that the applicant’s detention during the impugned period had been in compliance with the legislation in force at the time in question; that the head of the remand centre had had no legal basis for releasing the applicant, having information that the criminal case had been pending before a trial court. On 3 December 2012 the Regional Court upheld the judgment, considering as follows:
“The first-instance established the relevant circumstances and based its judgment on the provisions of the CCrP. It was right to conclude that there had been no legal basis for releasing the applicant after 19 February 2004, given that the head of the remand centre had had information that the criminal case had been submitted for trial. Thus, [the applicant’s] detention from 19 February to 29 April 2004 had been lawful ... The court was correct to dismiss the argument that, receiving no extension decision, the head of the remand centre should have released [the applicant] after 19 February 2004 ... Article 255 § 2 of the CCrP provides that the detention pending trial should not exceed six months, except for situations listed in paragraph 3 ... Thereafter, the relevant court can extend detention in cases relating to serious and particularly serious offences ... Thus, given that the criminal case was submitted for trial before the Syktyvkar Town Court and taking note of the decision of 21 April 2004 (in the part relating to the dismissal of the application for release), this decision should be de facto considered as a decision to extend [the applicant’s] detention within the time-limits mentioned in Article 255 of the CCrP ...”