Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 19.03.2009 «Дело Шкилев (Shkilev) против России» [англ.]

ct Court extended the applicant's and a co-defendant's detention until 10 April 2004, referring to the need for an additional investigation and the gravity of the charges. Moreover, the applicant had no permanent place of residence in Volgograd. The court found that there was a risk of the defendants' absconding or re-offending.
14. On 12 April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court.
15. The defendants asked for a trial by jury.
16. 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.
17. On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial.
18. On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before.
23. The applicant appealed against the extension order of 4 October 2005. In his grounds of appeal he complained that the Regional Court's conclusions that he could interfere with the investigation or abscond had been hypothetical and had not been supported by facts. He had a permanent place of residence, a minor daughter and elderly parents, and there was therefore no danger of his absconding. On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.
24. On 22 December 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 April 2006 for the same reasons as before.
25. On 10 April and 5 July 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention for the same reasons as before.
26. On 2 October 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges and the defendants' "characters". The court also indicated that the purpose of the detention was to eliminate any risk of the defendants' absconding, re-offending or hampering the court proceedings.
27. The applicant appealed, claiming that the Regional Court had used a stereotyped formula to justify his detention and that its conclusions that he might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings were not supported by relevant facts. He referred to his positive references and frail health and submitted that he had a minor child and elderly parents. He also complained that his detention had exceeded a reasonable time.
28. On 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. The defendants w

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10