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

trial court until 26 March 2001. On the next day it was sent to the hospital where the applicant was being kept.
26. On 9 February 2001 the applicant was diagnosed as sane by the experts and on that date he was apparently discharged from the hospital.
27. He submits that, notwithstanding the examination report, the court sent him, again, to the same hospital for a psychiatric examination on 4 April 2001. No such further examination having allegedly been carried out, he was discharged from the hospital on 20 April 2001. According to the applicant, his medical documents contained the diagnosis "sane" accompanied by a note indicating that this was the second such diagnosis (повторно).
28. In so far as the applicant complained about his detention in the hospital to the civil courts, in a judgment of 26 April 2001 the Tyumen District Court dismissed his complaint against the Tyumen Regional Psychiatric Hospital, finding that he had been placed there in accordance with a court order and that no violation of his physical integrity or any other rights had therefore taken place.
29. The applicant also complained to the Prosecutor's Office of the Tyumen Region, alleging that he had been unlawfully admitted to the psychiatric hospital and detained there. By a decision of 11 December 2001 a prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant's complaint. That decision was quashed on 7 March 2002 by a superior prosecutor and the relevant case file was sent back for additional investigation. On an unspecified date the case was discontinued.

G. The trial proceedings following
the applicant's examination

30. On 15 May 2001 the trial court received the case file from the hospital, together with the examination report.
31. It appears that owing to the court's workload, the next hearing was scheduled for 29 August 2001.

H. The trial hearings of 29 - 31 August 2001
and related review proceedings

32. At the hearing of 29 August 2001 the applicant requested the court to release him and to refer the case back for an additional investigation, with reference, among other things, to the prosecutor's failure clearly to formulate the charges of bribery. He further asked for additional access to the case file.
33. In a decision of 31 August 2001 the trial court rejected the applicant's requests for release and an additional investigation. It appears that in its reasoning the court merely cited the prosecutor's opinion on the applicant's complaints. In respect of the preventive measure it was noted that the applicant faced very serious charges and that he had attempted to obstruct the course of justice and the conduct of the preliminary investigation and on one occasion to abscond. The decision did not go into any further detail, and did not specify the period of the applicant's further detention.
34. At the same time the court ordered that the applicant and his lawyer should be granted access to the case file and adjourned the proceedings, without setting any further time-limit.
35. On 30 October 2001 the Military Court of the Ural Command upheld the decision of 31 August 2001 on appeal. The court repeated the reasoning of the trial court without going into further detail.

I. The letter dated 27 November 2001 from the prosecutor
supervising the execution of punishments

36. In a letter dated 27 November 2001, apparently in response to the applicant's numerous complaints, the prosecutor supervising the execution of punishments notified the President of the Military Court of the Ural Command that the applicant had been kept in detention since June 2000. He further noted that since November 2000, when the trial court had accepted the case for tr

> 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12