Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.09.2010 <Дело Сергей Тимофеев (Sergey Timofeyev) против России» [англ.]

articipate in the hearing; and that any stressful situation could aggravate his condition.
38. On 19 August 2002 the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant were suspended because of his illness.
39. On 1 October 2002 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the ruling of 19 August 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Shakhty Town Court with a new composition.
40. On 29 October 2002 a hearing was scheduled for 15 November 2002.
41. On 15 November 2002 the proceedings in respect of the applicant were suspended because of his illness and then resumed on 27 November 2002.
42. On 10 and 25 December 2002 hearings were postponed because of the applicant's absence.
43. On 17 January 2003 the proceedings in respect of the applicant were suspended because of his illness and then resumed on 31 January 2003.
44. On 10 February 2003 a hearing was postponed because the applicant's counsel, Ms L., was occupied.
45. On 26 February 2003 the Shakhty Town Court heard the applicant, his counsel, the victim and several witnesses and examined written evidence.
46. On 28 February 2003 the Shakhty Town Court convicted the applicant of rape and attempted rape and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from serving the sentence under the Amnesty Act.
47. On 28 February 2003 one of the victims appealed against the judgment.
48. On 5 and 11 March 2003 the applicant lodged appeals against his conviction, challenging, inter alia, the court's factual findings. According to the applicant, he requested the Rostov Regional Court to examine his appeal in his presence. According to the Government's submissions, the applicant did not request to be present at a hearing.
49. On 11 March 2003 the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of 28 February 2003.
50. On 1 April 2003 the applicant lodged an additional appeal in which he made detailed complaints alleging deficiencies in the first-instance proceedings. According to the Government, he also requested that an appeal hearing be held in his presence.
51. On 20 April 2003 the victim lodged an additional appeal, which was forwarded to the applicant for comments.
52. On 27 May 2003 the Shakhty Town Court received the applicant's comments on the victim's and prosecutor's appeals and then forwarded the case to the Rostov Regional Court. An appeal hearing was scheduled for 15 July 2003.
53. On 15 July 2003 the Rostov Regional Court postponed an appeal hearing to 5 August 2003 because the applicant was ill.
54. On 5 August 2003 the applicant did not appear before the Rostov Regional Court because he was ill. The hearing was postponed until 26 August 2003.
55. On 26 August 2003 the appeal hearing was again postponed because of the applicant's failure to appear in the court-room due to illness.
56. In August 2003 the President of the Criminal Chamber of Rostov Regional Court requested the Ministry of Health of Rostov Region and Chief Doctor of the Shakhty Oncological Dispensary to provide information on the applicant's state of health with a view to the possibility of his participating in an appeal hearing scheduled for 30 September 2003.
57. On 4 September 2003 the Health Department of Shakhty Administration informed the Rostov Regional Court that the applicant was suffering from a malignant lymphoma and that between 29 July and 18 August 2003 he had been hospitalised. The applicant was weak; a stressful situation would have an adverse impact on his state of health. It was not possible to predict or assume a date when he would be available for an appeal hearing.
58. On 29 September 2003 the applicant sent a telegram to the Rostov Regional Court, requesting that the hearing be adjourned as he was in hospital. He

> 1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9