Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Сухов (Sukhov) против России» [англ.]

oined with another set of criminal proceedings that had been instituted against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of ammunition.
10. On 1 March 1999 the proceedings were adjourned, but resumed on 3 March 1999 on the order of a higher-ranking prosecutor. The proceedings were adjourned again on 2 April 1999 owing to the applicant's alleged illness. Relying on a certificate issued by the head of Bratsk Town police station No. 3, the applicant insisted that he had not been sick, or received any medical treatment and that he had been performing his duties in the police station during that period. The Government confirmed that there was no medical evidence warranting any of the adjournments. The criminal proceedings were resumed on 27 November 2000 on the order of a higher-ranking prosecutor, who found that the decision to stay the proceedings was unlawful.
11. The pre-trial investigation was closed on 15 March 2001. The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Irkutsk Regional Court.
12. On 24 April 2001 the Regional Court returned the case file to the prosecution authorities with directions to correct certain procedural defects. It also made an order for the applicant to be provided with additional time to study the case-file. The prosecution authorities remitted the case file to the Regional Court on 7 August 2001.
13. On 14 September 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court again remitted the case file to the prosecution authorities because the applicant had not been given enough time to study the file.
14. The prosecution appealed against the decision of 14 September 2001. On 8 November 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Irkutsk Regional Court for examination on the merits.
15. On 29 March 2002 the Irkutsk Regional Court returned the case file to the prosecution authorities after finding that the investigation was incomplete. Five months later the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision on a prosecution appeal and ordered the Regional Court to examine the merits of the case.
16. After receiving the case file, the Irkutsk Regional Court listed the first trial hearing for 15 December 2002.
17. Of the six hearings listed between 15 December 2002 and 28 May 2003, three were adjourned, two to secure the attendance of witnesses and the other because the applicant's lawyer was ill.
18. No hearings were listed between 28 May and 29 October 2003, when the Irkutsk Regional Court remitted the case for examination by the Irkutsk Regional Court, sitting in Permanent Session.
19. On 11 November 2003 the Irkutsk Regional Court, sitting in Permanent Session, determined the composition of the bench and commenced the trial.
20. Of the four hearings listed between 11 November and 26 December 2003 three were postponed because prosecution witnesses failed to attend. The next hearing listed for 26 January 2004 was adjourned because the presiding judge was ill.
21. The following hearing was listed for 12 April 2004 but was adjourned until 1 June 2004 because the applicant's co-defendant was ill.
22. Between 1 June and 7 December 2004 the Regional Court scheduled seven hearings, of which three were adjourned because the applicant or his lawyer was ill.
23. On 7 December 2004 the Regional Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings until 22 December 2004.
24. Of the five hearings fixed between 22 December and 10 February 2005, three were adjourned because the applicant's lawyer was ill and one to allow the applicant's new counsel to study the case file.
25. On 10 February 2005 the Irkutsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of bribe-taking and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, but relieved him from the penalty owing to the expiration

> 1 2 3 4 ... 5