Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 24.06.2010 «Дело Велиев (Veliyev) против России» [англ.]

were brought in respect of this extension.

6. Extension of detention until 6 February 2005

28. On 6 December 2004 the District Court extended the pre-trial detention until 6 February 2005, for a total period of 11 months and 10 days. The court justified the decision with reference to essentially the same reasons as previously.
29. It is not clear whether the judge heard submissions from the applicant or his counsel in person or whether any appeal proceedings were brought in respect of this extension.

7. The first bill of indictment and decision
of 27 January 2005

30. It appears that on 11 January 2005 the investigation in respect of nine co-accused in the case, including the applicant, was over and the prosecution authority sent the bill of indictment, along with the case file, to the trial court for examination on the merits.
31. On 27 January 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court ("the Regional Court") carried out a preliminary examination of the case and, having detected various shortcomings and defects in the investigation, decided to return the file to the prosecutor.
32. Those defects included the following: failure to notify the accused of their rights in relation to the jury trial procedure; failure to decide whether there was any need to split the case in view of the fact that some co-accused had opted for a jury trial procedure; and lastly certain inconsistencies and shortcoming in the factual conclusions made by the prosecution in the bill of indictment.
33. The court noted that all accused in the case should remain in detention as there were no reasons to release them. The court did not set any specific time-limit for their detention. The decision referred to all accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. In taking this decision the court relied on Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
34. Upon expiration of the ten-day time-limit for appeal on 3 February 2005, the court sent the case file back to the prosecutor's office.

8. The applicant's request for release
dated 10 March 2005, the second bill of indictment
and the decision of 28 March 2005 to stay the proceedings

35. On 4 March 2005, having introduced necessary corrections and amendments, the prosecution sent the corrected case file to the trial court for examination on the merits.
36. On an unspecified date, the trial court decided to hold a preliminary hearing in the case on 28 March 2005. It does not appear that any formal decision was taken as regards the applicant's detention on remand.
37. On 10 March 2005 the applicant, through his lawyer, applied for release. The request referred to the alleged lack of any lawful basis for his continued detention as of 6 February 2005.
38. This request was examined and rejected by the Regional Court at the preliminary hearing on 28 March 2005. The court decided that the investigation should be suspended because one of the accused, Mr D.G. K., was seriously ill, while one of the others, Mr A.A. G., could not take part in the proceedings as he was being tried in a different set of proceedings for a different offence. The court noted that it was impossible to try the applicant separately from the other co-accused and that the six month time-limit, as set out in Article 255 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not breached.
39. In respect of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention on remand, the court noted that until 11 January 2005, the date on which the case had been sent to the trial court for examination on the merits, the applicant had been regarded as "detained pending investigation" and that after that date he was "detained pending trial". In view of the trial court's decision of 27 January 2005 remitting

> 1 2 3 4 ... 20 21 22