Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Логвиненко (Logvinenko) против России» [англ.]

). When deciding on a preventive measure, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are "sufficient grounds to believe" that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial, re-offend or obstruct the establishment of the truth (Article 97). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused's character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99).
29. Before 15 June 2001 the old CCrP set no time-limit for detention pending trial. On 15 June 2001 a new Article, 239-1, entered into force which established that the period of detention pending trial could not generally exceed six months from the date the court received the file. However, if there was evidence to show that the defendant's release might impede a thorough, complete and objective examination of the case, a court could - of its own motion or at the request of a prosecutor - extend the detention by no longer than three months. These provisions did not apply to defendants charged with particularly serious criminal offences. The new CCrP provides that the term of detention pending trial is calculated from the date the court receives the file up to the date on which the judgment is given. The period of detention pending trial may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3).

B. Resolution of the Supreme Court
of Russia No. 1 of 5 March 2004 on Application by Courts
of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure

30. As regards the rule set forth in Article 255 § 3 of the new CCrP, the Supreme Court noted that, when deciding on extension of a defendant's detention pending trial, the court should indicate the grounds justifying the extension and its time-limit (paragraph 16).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

31. The applicant complained that from 23 September to 1 December 2005 his pre-trial detention had not been covered by a court order and had therefore been unlawful. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so."
32. The Government contested that argument. In their view, at no time had the applicant been detained pending trial in the absence of a court order. All the court orders authorising the applicant's detention had been issued by a competent judicial body and had been subject to review by an appeal court. The applicant had attended all the court hearings. As regards the lawfulness of the applicant's detention from 23 September to 1 December 2005, the Government submitted that it had been covered by a court order issued on 28 July 2005 when the District Court had ruled that the restrictive measure imposed earlier on the applicant should remain unchanged. They suggested that even though the decision of 28 July 2005, had not referred to a time-limit for the applicant's detention, it should be interpreted, by virtue of the applicable rules of criminal procedure, as authorising the extension of the applicant's detention pending trial for another six months. They referred, in

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7 8