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

se he was charged with a serious criminal offence, thus, there are no grounds for a change or annulment of [the preventive measure].
The court takes into account that the detention is extended only for one month and eight days.
The court takes into account that [the applicant] has minor children, however, in determining the issue of the extension of detention, the court has regard to the fact that [the applicant] is charged with an offence under Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Russian Criminal Code, that is with having committed a serious crime for which the most lenient penalty is five years' imprisonment."
18. The decision of 22 April 2003 was upheld on appeal.
(c) Detention order of 30 May 2003
19. On 30 May 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 September 2003, citing the same reasons as in the decision of 22 April 2003.
20. On 9 June 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 May 2003, accepting the District Court's reasoning that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that the investigating authorities needed additional time.
(d) Request for the applicant's release
21. On 2 July 2003 the applicant's lawyer applied for the applicant's release under his own recognisance not to leave the town. The lawyer argued that the need to hold the applicant in custody had long ceased to exist as the pre-trial investigation had been closed. The lawyer further pointed to circumstances making the applicant's absconding improbable: the applicant had three minor children and permanent places of residence and work, and before his arrest the investigating authorities had summoned him on several occasions and he had never defaulted.
22. On 11 July 2003 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the request for release. It held that the applicant had been charged with aggravated fraud, money laundering, unlawful possession of ammunition and forgery of documents. A month later the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the decision, endorsing the District Court's findings.
(e) Decision of 25 September 2003
23. On 25 September 2003 the Leninskiy District Court held a preliminary trial hearing, at which the applicant's lawyers petitioned for the applicant's release and discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him. The District Court dismissed the request for release because the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences, and if released, could abscond or obstruct establishment of the truth. The District Court listed the first trial hearing for 8 October 2003.
24. The applicant's lawyers, Ms Liptser, Ms Karlova and Mr Kravchuk, appealed.
25. On 13 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court returned the statement of appeal to Ms Liptser, stating that the applicant had refused her services.
26. Ten days later the president of Lawyer's office No. 10 of the Moscow City Bar Association informed the District Court that Ms Liptser and the applicant had signed an agreement according to which Ms Liptser had been entrusted with the authority to appeal against the decision of 25 September 2003. Ms Liptser's statement of appeal against the decision of 25 September 2003 was enclosed.
27. On 30 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court accepted Ms Liptser's statement of appeal and sent it to the Smolensk Regional Court. Five days later the Regional Court, having heard the arguments by Ms Karlova and Mr Kravchuk, upheld the decision of 25 September 2003. The appeal statement lodged by Ms Liptser was examined by the Regional Court on 30 December 2003 and dismissed as unsubstantiated.
(f) Request for the applicant's release and decision of 8 October 2003
28. At the trial hearing on 8 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the applica

> 1 2 3 4 ... 25 26 27