Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Горощеня (Goroshchenya) против России» [англ.]

ion, which reads as follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial."

A. Submissions by the parties

75. The Government claimed that that the length of the applicant's detention had not been excessive. The extensions of the detention had been necessary in the circumstances of the case, in particular taking into account the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his obstructing the examination of the case and absconding if released. The Government stressed that the investigating and judicial authorities had exhibited particular diligence in conducting the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The criminal case was extremely difficult, involving a large number of defendants, victims and witnesses and requiring a great number of investigative and judicial steps to be taken. Furthermore, the Government drew the Court's attention to the prevailing grounds on which the applicant's detention had been extended, in particular, the absence of a registered residence in St Petersburg and the fact that he had once absconded and had been placed on the wanted persons' list. The placement on the list was warranted by the prosecution authorities' assumption that the applicant had gone into hiding, as he could not be found at his place of residence and it was impossible to establish his whereabouts.
76. The applicant replied that the domestic courts had not provided any evidence showing that he had been genuinely liable to reoffend, abscond or pervert the course of justice. The only reason for his continued detention was the gravity of the charges against him. The applicant further pointed out that he had not known of any criminal charges brought against him in 1995. In fact, he only learned about the 1995 warrant for his arrest when he was arrested in 1999. At the same time, in 1994 he and his family openly moved from Omsk to St. Petersburg. Furthermore, the criminal proceedings instituted in 1995 against him were discontinued in 2000 on "rehabilitating grounds".

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

77. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) General principles
78. Under the Court's case-law, the issue of whether a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in abstracto. Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features. Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty.
It falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this end they must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest that might justify, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions dismissing the applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violat



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet