Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Борис Попов (Boris Popov) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 23284/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 28.X.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> 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 Boris Popov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 23284/04) 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 Boris Aleksandrovich Popov ("the applicant"), on 19 May 2004.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms M. Misakyan, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, the former and current Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 3 September 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 § 1).
4. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.
5. On 27 August 2009 the President of the First Section decided that the parties should submit further observations under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Tomsk Region.

A. Arrest and detention in November 2001

7. During the night of 4 to 5 November 2001 there was a theft from an administrative building in the village of Pospelikha, Altay Region. A fax machine, an electric kettle, a wristwatch and a desk clock were stolen. On 6 November 2001 the authorities opened a criminal inquiry and arrested a Mr A. During his interview, from 6 to 6.30 p.m., he admitted the theft and named the applicant as his accomplice. A search was carried out in the applicant's house; several compact discs, a radio receiver and a telephone set were seized.
8. It appears that at about 6 p.m. on the same evening the applicant was arrested at his home by two officers from the Pospelikha district police station in the Altay Region. The applicant was taken to the police station and placed in the temporary detention centre. At an unspecified time on the same day Mr S., an investigator with the Pospelikha district police, notified the Pospelikha district prosecutor of the applicant's arrest. The notification had no reference number and no indication of the hour.
9. According to the applicant, at 11 a.m. on 7 November 2001 he swallowed an open safety pin in order to protest against his allegedl



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet