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

rring to the gravity of the charge and the risk of his absconding or reoffending. Counsel for the applicant was absent from the hearing.
13. On 8 September 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 10 December 2003, referring to the gravity of the charges and the need for an additional investigation. The applicant was represented by court-appointed counsel.
14. On 5 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 10 April 2004, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding or reoffending. Counsel for the applicant was absent from the hearing.
15. On 12 April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court.
16. The defendants asked for trial by jury.
17. On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.
18. On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court held a preliminary hearing, ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial.
19. On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges.
20. On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors.
21. On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was "opportune" to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, since it could not exclude the risk that they would put pressure on witnesses or jurors.
22. In his grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005 the applicant complained that the Regional Court's conclusion that he might interfere with the proceedings had been suppositional and had not been supported by facts. He further submitted that he had three minor children, an unemployed spouse and an elderly mother and that he was the only breadwinner of the family. He had a permanent place of residence and employment.
23. On 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. The appeal hearing took place in the presence of the prosecutor who made oral submissions. The applicant and his counsel were absent.
24. On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including the charge of being members of an armed criminal gang.
25. The applicant appealed, repeating his arguments set out in the grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005. On 7 September 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that the applicant had been charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences and that his arguments were not sufficient to warrant the quashing of the extension order.
26. On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before.
27. The applicant appealed, repeating his arguments set out in the grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005. He further complained that he had been refused access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their request for extension. On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been

> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18