Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Макаренко (Makarenko) против России» [англ.]

ravated fraud. The relevant part of the record read as follows:
"[The applicant], who is suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence, was arrested according to subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 91 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, and because the pre-trial investigating authorities have sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he may abscond..., threaten witnesses, destroy evidence or in any other way obstruct the investigation in the present case."
The applicant signed the record, making a handwritten objection to his arrest and the accusations against him.
8. On the following day a senior investigator of the Smolensk Regional FSB Investigative Division, with the consent of the acting Smolensk Regional Prosecutor, lodged an application with the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk, seeking authorisation for the applicant's detention on remand. The application contained a lengthy description of the fraudulent activities of a number of private and State-owned enterprises in which the applicant had allegedly taken part. The senior investigator also drew the District Court's attention to other circumstances warranting the applicant's detention, namely the likelihood that he would abscond and pervert the course of justice.
9. On 3 December 2002 the Leninskiy District Court authorised the applicant's detention, finding that he was accused of having committed a serious crime and that, if released, he might threaten witnesses, destroy evidence and obstruct justice.
10. The applicant's lawyer appealed against the decisions authorising the arrest and detention. In particular, she complained that there was no evidence which could serve as grounds for the applicant's arrest and that if such evidence did exist, it had not been listed in the record of the applicant's arrest. According to the lawyer, the authorities did not put forward any evidence justifying the conclusion that the applicant was liable to abscond or obstruct justice.
11. On 11 December 2002 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the decision of 3 December 2002, holding as follows:
"Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the information concerning the personality of the accused, [the court finds that] the investigator's application is substantiated because [the applicant] may threaten witnesses, destroy evidence in the case and obstruct adjudication of the case."
12. Two weeks later, on 26 December 2002, the Leninskiy District Court rejected the lawyer's complaint concerning the applicant's arrest, finding that the arrest had been effected in compliance with Article 91 § 1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. On 6 February 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court, upheld the decision of 26 December 2002.

2. Extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention

(a) Detention order of 31 January 2003
14. On 31 January 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 24 April 2003, holding that there were no grounds warranting his release.
15. The applicant's lawyer appealed. In particular, she complained that the District Court had not put forward any reason necessitating the extension of the applicant's detention.
16. On an unspecified date the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 January 2003.
(b) Detention order of 22 April 2003
17. On 22 April 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 June 2003, reasoning that additional time was required to perform certain investigative actions. The District Court further held as follows:
"[The applicant] is accused of having committed a serious criminal offence; the court remanded him in custody becau

> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27