Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Горощеня (Goroshchenya) против России» [англ.]

br /> 88. The Court further observes that the domestic authorities did not cite any other concrete facts warranting the applicant's detention. They did not indicate any circumstance to suggest that, if released, the applicant would abscond, reoffend or otherwise upset the course of the trial. The domestic courts merely repeated the same conclusion concerning possible collusion, without citing any reason why, notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the applicant in support of his requests for release, they considered the risk of interference with witnesses and evidence to exist and be decisive. The Court is therefore not convinced that the domestic authorities' findings that the applicant was likely to pervert the course of justice, reoffend or abscond had sufficient basis in fact.
89. The Court further emphasises that when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures to ensure his or her appearance at the trial (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, No. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005, and {Jablonski} v. Poland, No. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000). During the entire 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 a written undertaking or bail - which are expressly provided for by Russian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, or, at the very minimum, seek to explain in their decisions why such alternatives would not have ensured that the trial would follow its proper course.
90. In sum, the Court finds that the domestic authorities' decisions were not based on an analysis of all the pertinent facts. They paid no regard to the arguments in favour of the applicant's release pending trial. It is also of particular concern to the Court that the Russian authorities persistently used a stereotyped summary formula, simultaneously extending the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants. In the Court's view, this approach is incompatible in itself with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permits the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or of compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Dolgova v. Russia, No. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
91. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to address concrete relevant facts or consider alternative "preventive measures" and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which cannot be regarded as "sufficient". They thus failed to justify the applicant's continued detention for almost four years. It is hence not necessary to examine whether the proceedings against the applicant were conducted with due diligence during that period, as such a lengthy period cannot in the circumstances be regarded as "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, No. 36911/02, § 59, 24 May 2007, with further references).
92. The Court accordingly finds a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

III. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

93. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings was incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."

A. Submissions by the parties

94. The Government considered that the complaint of excessive length

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17 ... 18