Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Сергей Медведев (Sergey Medvedev) против России» [англ.]

n with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3 (compare Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
41. The Court finds that the applicant's detention was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
42. As regards the applicant's complaint that his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial had been infringed, the Court finds that it is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties' submissions

43. The Government submitted that the decisions to remand the applicant in custody had been lawful and justified. The domestic courts had taken into account the fact that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence, had not lived at his registered place of residence in the Moscow region and had no residence registration in Moscow. Therefore, there had been a risk that he might abscond if released. Further, the domestic courts had referred to the danger of his reoffending, that danger being gauged by reference to his membership of the National Bolshevik Party. That party had been recognised as an extremist organisation by a Russian court and had been banned. Its members had resorted to radical and violent action to express their political views. The applicant had been previously fined in administrative proceedings for commission of disorderly acts, which also proved that he was likely to reoffend. The domestic courts had also taken into account the fact that the imputed offence had been committed by an organised group. It had therefore been necessary to hold the applicant in custody to prevent his obstructing the establishment of the truth by communicating details of the investigation to his accomplices. In the Government's view, the applicant's detention had been founded on "relevant and sufficient" reasons.
44. The applicant considered that the domestic courts had not advanced "relevant and sufficient" reasons to hold him in custody for more than a year. The criminal proceedings against him had been politically motivated and he had been persecuted for his political views and membership of an opposition organisation, the National Bolshevik Party. He had a permanent place of residence, had offered to post bail and had provided the courts with the personal surety of a member of Parliament. The domestic courts had extended his detention without demonstrating the existence of specific facts in support of their conclusion that he might abscond, interfere with the investigation or reoffend.

2. The Court's assessment

(a) General principles
45. The Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention. However, after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
46. The presumption is in favour of release. As the Court has consistently held, the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 8 9 10