Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.02.2010 «Дело Сычев (Sychev) против России» [англ.]

a psychiatric examination (see paragraphs 22 - 29 and 40 and the Court's reasoning in paragraph 73), throughout this time his detention was covered by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
84. Making an overall evaluation of the accumulated periods under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court therefore concludes that the period to be taken into consideration in the instant case is two years, two months and twelve days.
(b) Reasonableness of the length of the period in issue
85. It is clear from the case file that the applicant's detention was initially warranted by a reasonable suspicion of his having committed various crimes. It remains to be ascertained whether the judicial authorities gave "relevant" and "sufficient" grounds to justify his continued detention and whether they displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings.
86. The Court observes that after the case had been submitted for trial, on 18 November 2000 the applicant was kept in detention with no reference to any grounds. The trial court only noted that the preventive measure applied to the applicant "should remain unchanged" (see paragraph 17 above). Subsequently, in the period from 18 November 2000 to 14 August 2002 the trial court extended the applicant's detention on three occasions. On 6 December 2000 the court failed to mention any grounds for the decision, whilst on 31 August 2001 and 17 December 2001 the court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and mentioned that he had attempted to obstruct the course of justice and the conduct of the investigation and to abscond (see paragraphs 20, 33 and 41 above).
87. The Court has repeatedly held that, although the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of an accused absconding or reoffending, the need to continue the deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed from a purely abstract point of view, taking into consideration only the gravity of the offence. Nor can continuation of detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, § 101, 1 March 2007; Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; and Goral v. Poland, No. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003). The Court further reiterates that any system of mandatory detention pending trial is incompatible per se with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, it being incumbent on the domestic authorities to establish and demonstrate the existence of concrete facts outweighing the rule of respect for individual liberty (see Belevitskiy, cited above, § 102, with further references). As regards the existence of a risk of absconding, the Court reiterates that such a danger cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the sentence faced. It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Panchenko, cited above, § 106; and Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A No. 207). In the present case the decisions of the domestic authorities gave no reasons why, notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the applicant in support of his applications for release, they considered the risk of his absconding to be decisive. The domestic decisions merely hinted at the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that the defendants would abscond, without saying what those grounds actually were. Since neither the trial court nor the Government in the proceedings before the Court have been able to substantiate the allegations that the applicant might obstruct the course of justice and abscond, the Court finds that the existence of such a risk was not established.
88. The Court would lastly emphasise that under Article 5 § 3 the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring the acc

> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12