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

tire period under consideration the authorities did not consider the possibility of ensuring the applicant's attendance by the use of other "preventive measures" - such as bail - which are expressly provided for by Russian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. In that context, the Court would emphasise that under Article 5 § 3 the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial when deciding whether a person should be released or detained. Indeed, the provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 183; Dolgova v. Russia, No. 11886/05, § 47, 2 March 2006). In the Court's view, the authorities should either have considered having recourse to such alternative measures or at minimum explained in their decisions why such alternatives would not have ensured that the trial would follow its proper course. This failure is made all the more inexplicable by the fact that after 1 July 2002 the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly requires the domestic courts to consider less restrictive "preventive measures" as an alternative to custody (see paragraph 27).
47. Lastly, the Court observes that the District Court's decisions extending the applicant's detention during the trial had no regard to his individual circumstances. The trial court used the same summary formula to extend detention of the applicant and his co-defendant, without describing their personal situation in any detail. The Court reiterates that this approach is incompatible, in itself, with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 since it has permitted the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or compliance with the "reasonable-time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Khudoyorov, § 186; and Dolgova, § 49, both cited above).
48. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to address specific facts or consider alternative "preventive measures" and by relying solely on the gravity of the charges, the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which, although "relevant", cannot be regarded as "sufficient" to justify its duration.
49. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

50. Lastly, the applicant complained that his conviction of 22 April 2004 as upheld on 25 May 2004 had been based on inadmissible evidence; that he had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence during the first trial and that the overall length of the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably long. He further alleged that in January 2002 some newspapers and TV channels had broadcasted information about him. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (d).
51. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

52. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
53. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8