Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.04.2010 «Дело Юрий Яковлев (Yuriy Yakovlev) против России» [англ.]

as fixed the trial date (Article 233 § 1 of the new CCrP). There are no restrictions on fixing the date of a preliminary hearing.
52. The duration of the entire trial proceedings is not limited in time.
53. The new CCrP provides that the appeal court must start the examination of the appeal no later than one month after it is lodged (Article 374).

B. Passports for travel

54. A Russian national has to produce a passport for travel to cross the Russian border (section 7 of the Law on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving the Russian Federation, No. 114-FZ of 15 August 1996). The passport for travel belonging to an accused can be retained by a court, a prosecutor or a policeman until the termination of the criminal proceedings (sections 6.1 § 3 and 6.7 of the Instruction on issuance of passports for travel, approved by the Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, No. 310 of 26 May 1997).

THE LAW

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

55. The applicant complained that his detention was excessively long. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under 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..."

A. Submissions by the parties

56. The Government commenced their line of arguments with the description of the criminal case in which the applicant had been involved. In particular, they argued that the latter had been implicated in a large-scale corruption when a group of high-ranking officials of the Fund had organised a criminal enterprise, having received millions of roubles in bribes from representatives of pharmaceutical companies and officials of subordinated funds in the mandatory medical insurance field. Activities of that criminal enterprise, in which the applicant played an active role, caused substantial damage to the system of provision of medicines to citizens of the Russian Federation. In the Government's view, the institution of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co-defendants was performed in the interests of society and, in particular, its most vulnerable groups. The length of the applicant's detention was therefore justified by the requirements of the public interest.
57. The Government further confirmed that at the first stages of the criminal investigation the applicant had not been taken into custody, having given a written undertaking not to interfere with the investigation. However, in June and July 2007 it was established that the applicant was taking steps to obstruct the course of justice by "inciting individuals who possessed information about his criminal activities to distort the facts". It was also found that the applicant was liable to take other measures to avoid criminal responsibility. In response to that information the applicant's arrest was authorised. The Government cited information by the FSB official, Mr V., laid down in his letter of 2 July 2007.
58. In a further line of arguments, the Government explained that the domestic courts had thoroughly examined the grounds put forward by the defence in support of their requests for the applicant's release. However, they considered that neither the applicant's state of health, nor his family and personal situation, nor the positive reference which he had been given, nor his readiness to post bail for himself or provide personal assurances outweighed the investigator's arguments that the applicant should be kept in custody. The Government submitted that the applicant's arrest had been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed criminal offences. As to subsequent extensions



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet