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

ing authorities and the lawyers do not refer to that fact in their statements of appeal."
31. According to the applicant, he finished examining the case file on 10 October 2008. Two weeks later the remaining defendants completed their examination of the file. The Government, relying on the Supreme Court decision of 14 October 2008, disputed the applicant's submissions, arguing that in October the applicant had asked for additional time to review the case file and his co-defendants had not yet finished reading the file.

H. Detention order of 3 December 2008 (extension
of the applicant's detention until 10 February 2009)

32. On 3 December 2008 the Moscow City Court issued a decision collectively extending the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants until 10 February 2009. The City Court reasoned that the grounds which had called for the defendants' arrest (the gravity of the charges, the defendants' personality, their broad connections to officials in various State bodies, including law-enforcement agencies, and their liability to abscond and pervert the course of the investigation through tampering with witnesses, destruction of evidence or other means) were still in place. At the same time the court dismissed as irrelevant the applicant's lawyers' arguments that he had completed the reading of the criminal case file, that he had been ill and that he had no intention of perverting the course of the criminal proceedings or absconding.
33. According to the Government, on 10 December 2008 the last co-defendant completed reading the case file and the defendants were committed to stand trial before the Moscow City Court.
34. On 26 January 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 3 December 2008, finding as follows:
"[The applicant and his co-defendants] are charged with a particularly serious criminal offence committed within an organised group; [they] were top-ranking officials; thus the court correctly concluded that those persons, if released, could pervert the proceedings in the case and influence witnesses.
...
As follows from the presented materials, [the applicant's and his co-defendants'] state of health does not preclude them from being detained and from participating in investigative actions.
...
The court does not see grounds to accept the statements of appeal."

I. Further extensions of the applicant's detention.
Trial on 12 August 2009

35. In the meantime, on 11 January 2009 the Moscow City Court scheduled a preliminary hearing and held that the grounds warranting the detention of the applicant and two of his ten co-defendants had not changed and thus they should remain in custody.
36. On 23 January 2009 the Moscow City Court held a preliminary hearing, as a result of which it found the case ready for trial and listed the first trial hearing. At the same hearing the City Court examined the applicant's lawyer's request for the applicant's release and dismissed it, finding that the measure of restraint in respect of the applicant and his two co-defendants had been chosen correctly on the basis of a thorough consideration of their personal characteristics. The court concluded that it was still necessary to keep them detained to ensure the smooth course of the criminal proceedings.
37. The applicant's lawyers appealed, arguing that five of the ten co-defendants had been released in 2007 and another co-defendant in 2008. Their release did not affect the case and there were no reasons to conclude that the applicant's release would in any way interfere with the course of the proceedings. In support of their arguments the lawyers relied on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Panchenko v. R



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet