Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.03.2010 «Дело Савенкова (Savenkova) против России» [англ.]

rred to the Tambov SIZO-1 and remained there awaiting the second trial.
26. On 20 November 2002 the Tambov Regional Court conducted a hearing of the criminal case where the applicant allegedly challenged the detention order and requested to be released. She provided a copy of the application, signed by her counsel Kh., but claims that the court did not examine it.
27. According to the applicant, on 9 December 2002 her lay representative, R., lodged another application with the Tambov Regional Court for the measure of restraint to be changed to an obligation not to leave her place of residence. According to the Government, this application was lodged on 20 January 2003.
28. On 20 January 2003, before the hearing of her case by the Tambov Regional Court, the applicant's counsel Kh. made an application to the court challenging the applicant's continued pre-trial detention and requesting that the measure of restraint be changed to an undertaking not to leave her place of residence. The application was examined and dismissed by the Tambov Regional Court with reference to the gravity of the charges.
29. On 9 April 2003 the Tambov Regional Court acquitted the applicant and Z. of all charges because of lack of evidence. They were released in the court room. The prosecutor appealed against the acquittal.
30. On 9 June 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the prosecutor's appeal, reversed the judgment of 9 April 2003 and remitted the case for a fresh first-instance examination.
31. On 19 February 2004 the Tambov Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to eight years' imprisonment. Z. was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. They were taken into custody from the court room.
32. On appeal, on 16 April 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 19 February 2004 in substance, but reduced the applicant's sentence to five years' imprisonment and Z.'s sentence to nine years' imprisonment.
33. On 14 January 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the applicant's request for the suspension of her imprisonment and she was released.

II. Relevant domestic law

34. Until 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR (Law of 27 October 1960, "the old CCrP"). From 1 July 2002 the old CCrP was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Law No. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001, "the new CCrP").

A. Preventive measures

35. "Preventive measures" (меры пресечения) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region, personal security, bail and detention (Article 89 of the old CCrP, Article 98 of the new CCrP).

B. Authorities ordering detention

36. The Russian Constitution of 12 December 1993 establishes that a judicial decision is required before a defendant can be detained or have his or her detention extended (Article 22).
37. Under the old CCrP, a decision ordering detention could be taken by a prosecutor or a court (Articles 11, 89 and 96).
38. The new CCrP requires a judicial decision by a district or town court on a reasoned request by a prosecutor supported by appropriate evidence (Article 108 §§ 1 and 3 - 6).

C. Grounds for ordering detention on remand

39. When deciding whether to remand an accused in custody, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are "sufficient grounds to believe" that he or she would abscond during the investigation or trial or obstruct the establishment of the truth or reoffend (Article 89 of the old CCrP). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused's character, his or her profess

> 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 14