Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Алехин (Alekhin) против России» [англ.]

be brought to the courtroom for the preliminary hearing and that he be accompanied by a doctor.
11. On 19 October 2007 the Moskovskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing and fixed the opening date of the trial for 20 November 2007. The court reiterated that the applicant should be accompanied by a doctor when brought to the courtroom for a hearing.
12. The hearings of 20 November and 20 December 2007 were adjourned because the applicant was in hospital.
13. The hearings of 14, 21 and 28 January 2008 were adjourned because the applicant was not brought to the courtroom. The applicant had difficulty walking and the police escort refused to carry him on a stretcher, claiming that it did not form part of their duties. The stretcher did not fit standard prison vans, making it impossible to transport the applicant. Moreover, the remand centre authorities refused to assign a doctor to accompany the applicant to the courtroom.
14. The court decided that further hearings should be held in the remand centre.
15. Hearings were held on 11 and 18 February, 3, 17, 24 and 31 March, 14, 21 and 28 April, 12, 19 and 26 May and 2, 9, 23 and 30 June 2008.
16. No hearings were held in July or August 2008 as the defendants' lawyers were on leave.
17. The trial resumed on 29 August 2008, with further hearings held on 18 and 19 September 2008.
18. On 19 September 2008 the Moskovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of unlawful business activities, an offence under Article 172 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and acquitted him of money laundering, an offence under Article 174.1 § 4 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced him to six years' imprisonment.
19. On 26 January 2009 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

2. Decisions concerning the application
of a custodial measure

20. On 22 November 2005 the applicant gave an undertaking not to leave the city or reoffend.
21. On 13 February 2006 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered his placement in custody. The court found on the basis of evidence submitted by the investigator that the applicant had continued his unlawful business activities despite his undertaking not to reoffend and had put pressure on his employees urging them to repudiate their testimony against him. It considered the applicant's arguments that he had a permanent place of residence and employment, that he was the only breadwinner for his family consisting of his elderly mother, unemployed spouse and two minor children, and that he suffered from ischaemic heart disease. It found, however, that there was no medical evidence showing that his state of health was incompatible with custody. Given the gravity of the charges, there was a risk that he might abscond, reoffend or intimidate witnesses.
22. On 28 February 2006 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the custody order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.
23. On 11 April 2006 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 10 June 2006.
24. On 8 June 2006 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 13 August 2006, referring to the gravity of the charges and the need for further investigation. The court found that the applicant had breached his undertaking not to reoffend and that several witnesses had requested anonymity because they feared threats from the applicant. In reply to the applicant's argument about his poor health, it held that there was no medical evidence that his condition was incompatible with detention. His complaints about insufficient medical assistance were unsubstantiated. The court considered that the applicant had received adequate medical assistance in the remand centre. The court also noted that the applicant's arguments

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22