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

l surety, bail and detention (Article 98). If necessary, the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear (обязательство о явке) (Article 112 of the CCrP).
39. When deciding on a preventive measure, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are "sufficient grounds to believe" that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial, reoffend or obstruct the establishment of the truth (Article 97). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused's character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99).
40. Detention may be ordered by a court if the charge carries a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment, provided that a less restrictive preventive measure cannot be applied (Article 108 § 1).
41. After arrest the suspect is placed in custody "during the investigation". The period of detention during the investigation may be extended beyond six months only if the detainee is charged with a serious or particularly serious criminal offence. No extension beyond eighteen months is possible (Article 109 §§ 1 - 3). The period of detention "during the investigation" is calculated up to the day when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court (Article 109 § 9).
42. From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is "before the court" (or "during the trial"). The period of detention "during the trial" is calculated up to the date the judgment is given. It may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

43. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time and alleged that detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."

A. Admissibility

44. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the period of his detention before 20 August 2005. In their opinion, the Court had competence to examine the applicant's detention only with regard to the six months preceding the submission of his application form. Moreover, the applicant had not appealed against the detention orders issued before 4 October 2005.
45. The Court considers that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, No. 27561/02, §§ 29 and 37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)). Following his placement in custody on 21 April 2003 the applicant continuously remained in detention. Although he did not lodge appeals against the extension orders issued before October 2005, he appealed to the Supreme Court against the detention orders of 4 October 2005 and 2 October 2006, claiming, in particular, that his detention had exceeded a reasonable time. He thereby gave an opportunity to the Supreme Court to consider whether his detention was compatible with his Convention right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. Indeed, the Supreme Court had to assess the necessity of further extensions in the light of the entire preceding period o

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10