Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.07.2009 «Дело Кононович (Kononovich) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KONONOVICH v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 41169/02)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 9.VII.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 Kononovich v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 June 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 41169/02) 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 Bogdan Ivanovich Kononovich ("the applicant"), on 3 November 2002.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to psychological and physical pressure while in police custody and that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and unreasonably long.
4. On 17 April 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in Izhevsk.

A. Arrest and detention pending investigation

7. On 20 June 2000 the applicant and two other persons were apprehended on suspicion of involvement in several incidents of theft. The applicant was allegedly taken to a flat where the police officers beat him up to make him confess to the crimes. On the next day he was transferred to a temporary detention facility at a police station. According to the applicant, the beatings continued on 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000.
8. On 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000 in response to the applicant's complaints of renal colic and pain in the lumbar area, the officer on duty called an ambulance. The applicant was examined on each occasion by a doctor, who did not find it necessary to take him to hospital. The applicant did not tell the doctor or the officer on duty anything as to what might have caused those pains. Nor did he say anything about ill-treatment by the police.
9. On 21 June 2000 the investigator ordered that the applicant's flat be searched. On 23 June 2000 the police conducted the search.
10. On 23 June 2000 the applicant's family retained a lawyer to represent him during the investigation and trial. On 15 December 2000 the applicant's father was also admitted to represent him as a lay defender.
11. On the same day the prosecutor of the Zapadniy Administrative Circuit o

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8