Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Бордиков (Bordikov) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 921/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 8.X.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bordikov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 921/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Viktor Viktorovich Bordikov ("the applicant"), on 29 November 2002.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr K. Krakovskiy, a lawyer practising in Rostov-on-Don. The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and Mr A. Savenkov, First Deputy Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions without being given adequate medical treatment, and that his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably long.
4. On 14 September 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).
5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application.
6. On 18 October 2007 the Court decided to discontinue the joint examination of the admissibility and merits and declared the application partly admissible and partly inadmissible.
7. The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

8. The applicant was born in 1964 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kirov Region.

A. Arrest and detention pending criminal investigation

9. On 19 March 1995 the police uncovered a substantial quantity of marijuana in one of the offices of Rostov Nautical College. A witness testified that the drug had been left there by the applicant, who was arrested a day later and then released on 23 March 1995 on a written undertaking not to leave town. It appears that the applicant failed to appear for questioning on several occasions. The authorities failed to establish his whereabouts and on 5 July 1995 the criminal investigation was suspended.
10. The applicant was arrested on 29 April 1998. The police found cocaine on him. More drugs and some ammunition were discovered in his flat. On 30 April 1998 the prosecutor authorised his detention pending investigation, referring to the risk of his abscondi

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14