Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Рослов (Roslov) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ROSLOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 40616/02)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 17.VI.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 Roslov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 May 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 40616/02) 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 Andrey Nikolayevich Roslov ("the applicant"), on 1 October 2002.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms K.A. Moskalenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 14 September 2005 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was the principal of a secondary school in Orel.
5. On 21 December 1998 the prosecutor of Orel initiated criminal proceedings for misappropriation against an unknown person, in which the applicant was questioned as a witness.
6. On 20 April 1999 the preliminary investigation was suspended due to the applicant's illness.
7. On 22 August 1999 the above decision was quashed for lack of lawful grounds, and the investigation resumed.
8. On 20 September 1999 the applicant was charged with misappropriation. An undertaking not to leave his place of residence was imposed on him at the same date.
9. On 21 September 1999 the applicant was invited to study the case file, which he continued to do till 4 October 1999.
10. On 8 October 1999 the case file was received by the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Orel ("the District Court"). The first hearing did not occur until 17 December 1999 due to the applicant's illness and his legal counsel's other commitments.
11. On 17 December 1999 and 26 May 2000 the District Court granted the prosecutor's motions, the first one supported and the second one opposed by the applicant, to remit the case for additional investigation on account of a violation of procedural time-limits and incomplete examination of the case. Both decisions were set aside on appeal by the Orel Regional Court ("the Regional Court") on 18 January 2000 and 11 July 2000, respectively, and the case was remitted to the District Court for fresh examination.
12. From 11 July to 4 September 2000 the prosecutor kept the case file, while, according to the Government, deciding whether to bring an application for supervisory review of the Regional Court's decisions.




> 1 2 3 ... 4 5

	Поделиться:	Tweet