Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Губкин (Gubkin) против России» [англ.]

ention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002."
22. On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified.
23. On 1 October and 31 December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the above decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002.
24. The applicant appealed against each of the above extension orders to the Supreme Court arguing that the extension orders were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration his individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decisions on appeal.
25. In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court, composed of presiding judge Mr Zh. and lay judges Ms S. and Ms M., extended the applicant's detention until 19 May 2004. The court used the same stereotyped wording and referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. The applicant again appealed against the extension to the Supreme Court.
26. On 10 March 2005, that is after the applicant's conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 31 below), the Supreme Court of Russia discontinued the examination of the applicant's appeal because he had been convicted in the meantime by the Regional Court.
27. In addition to appealing against the detention extension orders the applicant on a number of occasions in 2003 - 2004 applied to have the preventive measure changed to a written undertaking not to leave the town. Among his arguments were the rather extended period of time he had spent in detention, his family ties (two minor children and a disabled mother) and his poor health.
28. On 17 February, 21 June, 25 December 2003 and 2 February and 5 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the applicant's requests. The court's reasoning was the gravity of the charges against him. The applicant appealed against all of these decisions to the Supreme Court.
29. In one decision of 10 March 2005, that is after the applicant's conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 31 below), the Supreme Court of Russia rejected all the appeals as follows:
"The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with various crimes, including particularly serious crimes.
In the course of the proceedings the court dismissed the above requests.
In their appeals the defendants and lawyers ask for the above decisions to be quashed.
Having examined the material and the arguments put forward in the appeals, the court finds that the appeal proceedings are to be discontinued, since at the present time the examination of the case has been completed by the pronouncement of the sentence..."
30. As regards the trial proceedings in the period from 27 February 2002 to 25 February 2004, the case was adjourned on forty-two occasions. In particular, five hearings were adjourned at the request of the applicant and his co-defendants, who wished to study the case file or the records of the hearings; fourteen hearings were adjourned due to requests by the applicant and his co-defendants for the replacement of their representatives and the need for the newly appointed representatives to study the case file; fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the illness of the representatives and their failure to appear before the court, and eight hearings were adjourned due to the illness of the co-defendants or following their complaints concerning their health.
31. On 17 May 2004 the Rostov Regional Court, co

> 1 2 3 4 ... 24 25 26