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

xtension of [the applicant's] detention, the court takes into account his age, family situation and state of health.
Having assessed the amount of investigative actions which the investigative authorities have to perform, the court considers that the period for which the investigator asks [for the detention to be extended] is reasonable."
15. On 7 November 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order, finding that the District Court's conclusions were lawful and well-founded.

C. Detention order of 30 October 2007 (extension
of detention until 10 February 2008)

16. On 30 October 2007 the Basmanniy District Court, by a decision worded similarly to the one issued on 3 September 2007, authorised a further extension of the applicant's detention, this time until 10 February 2008.
17. On 10 December 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order, confirming that the gravity of the charges against the applicant, his liability to abscond, pervert the course of the investigation and trial had been rightfully listed by the District Court as grounds authorising a further extension of the applicant's detention.
18. On 25 December 2007 the pre-trial investigation ended and two days later the applicant and his lawyers began studying the case file.

D. Detention order of 7 February 2008 (extension
until 10 May 2008)

19. At the end of January 2008 an investigator of the Prosecutor General's office lodged an application with the Basmanniy District Court seeking an extension of the applicant's detention for an additional three months. The investigator reasoned that the criminal case was particularly complex, the case file comprised eighty-nine volumes and additional time was necessary for eleven co-defendants and their twenty lawyers to study the file. He further submitted that the applicant was liable to abscond and pervert the course of the investigation by destroying evidence.
20. The applicant's lawyers lodged a counter-claim, asking for the applicant's release. They claimed that it was no longer necessary to hold the applicant in custody, as the criminal investigation had ended, the evidence had been collected and the necessity to study the case file did not require the applicant's further detention. The lawyers also invoked the applicant's personal circumstances calling for his release: his age, very poor state of health, his permanent place of residence in Moscow and his law-abiding behaviour for more than a year since the criminal proceedings against him had been initiated.
21. On 7 February 2008 the Basmanniy District Court, having examined the investigator's application and the arguments of the defence in reply, extended the applicant's detention for an additional three months, until 10 May 2008. The District Court invoked the necessity for the applicant and his lawyers to study the voluminous case file as the main ground for the extension. It further relied on the gravity of the charges, "the circumstances of the crime, the information on [the applicant's] personality, including his official position" as the evidence of the applicant's liability to abscond and influence witnesses and other participants of the criminal proceedings. In conclusion, the District Court noted that it had taken into account the applicant's age, family situation, his state of health and the fact that he permanently resided in Moscow. However, the reasons for the extension outweighed those considerations.
22. On 19 March 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's and his lawyers' appeal against the decision of 7 February 2008, finding that the District Court had thoroughly examined the circumstances of the case and had drawn the correct conclusions.

E. Detentio



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet