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

13. No hearings were held between 14 and 30 November 2000 due to the applicant's illness.
14. On 25 December 2000 the District Court again took a decision, upheld by the Regional Court on 6 February 2001, to grant the prosecutor's motion to remit the case for additional investigation. The applicant objected to the motion.
15. On 26 July 2001 the investigation authorities returned the case file to the District Court. A hearing was scheduled for 6 September 2001.
16. Between 6 September 2001 and 28 March 2002 five hearings were adjourned following the applicant's request to summon certain witnesses, and one hearing was adjourned to let the applicant's legal counsel study the case file. Two hearings did not take place due to the applicant's illness.
17. On 27 March 2002 the applicant waived his counsel alleging that the latter had not had enough time to study the case file.
18. On 28 March 2002 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and gave him a suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 23 April 2002.
19. On 24 April 2002 the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the conviction.
20. On 28 November 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the conviction by way of supervisory review on account of a violation of the applicant's right to prepare his defence and right to legal assistance and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination.
21. On 6 January 2003 the District Court fixed a hearing for 20 January 2003. The applicant appealed.
22. Between 20 January and 8 April 2003 the case file stayed at the Regional Court while the applicant's appeal was being examined.
23. Between 8 April 2003 and 2 February 2004 nine hearings did not take place due to the applicant's illness and his counsel's other commitments. Four hearings were adjourned following the applicant's request to summon certain witnesses.
24. On 9 February 2004 the District Court acquitted the applicant.
25. On 30 March 2004 the Regional Court overturned the acquittal on appeal on account of incorrect assessment of evidence and application of the law and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination.
26. On 26 April 2004 the hearing was adjourned to reissue the civil claimant's counsel's expired power of attorney.
27. Between 6 May and 26 July 2004 two hearings were adjourned to accommodate the applicant's schedule, summon certain witnesses and settle some formalities, and other two hearings were adjourned to let the applicant choose a new legal counsel and to give the latter time to study the case file.
28. No hearings were held in August and September 2004 because the defence witnesses' attendance could not be secured.
29. Between 22 October and 26 November 2004 three hearings were adjourned to grant the applicant time to study the case file and to prepare his last statement, and to summon certain witnesses at both parties' requests.
30. On 26 November 2004 the District Court terminated the proceedings in respect of a part of the charge for lack of corpus delicti, found the applicant guilty of abuse of office and relieved him of criminal liability as time-barred.
31. On 25 January 2005 the Regional Court set the conviction aside and terminated criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of corpus delicti. The applicant was apprised of his right to bring proceedings for compensation of the damage incurred by the criminal proceedings against him.
32. On 24 April 2007 the Regional Court took a final decision to grant in part the applicant's claims for compensation for pecuniary damage resulting from lost wages, the cost of legal assistance and medical c

> 1 2 3 4 ... 5