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

ion of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV).
79. The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX). Where the law provides for a presumption in respect of factors relevant to the grounds for continued detention, the existence of concrete facts outweighing the rule of respect for individual liberty must be convincingly demonstrated (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, No. 33977/96, § 84 in fine, 26 July 2001).
80. The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita, cited above, § 153).
(b) Application of the general principles to the present case
81. The Court finds that the period to be examined commenced on 4 October 1999, when the applicant was arrested, and ended on 21 July 2003, the day of his conviction by the St Petersburg City Court on the charges of aggravated robbery and fraud. It is not disputed by the parties that the applicant's detention was initially warranted by a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the commission of a large-scale fraud. The Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention. The domestic authorities cited the gravity of the charges and the need to prevent the applicant from absconding and obstructing as the grounds for his placement in custody. At that stage of the proceedings those reasons justified keeping the applicant in custody (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 176, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)). However after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita, cited above, §§ 152 and 153).
82. The Court notes that the authorities extended the applicant's detention on a number of occasions. In their decisions they consistently relied on the gravity of the charges as the main factor and on the applicant's potential to abscond or pervert the course of justice.
83. As regards the authorities' reliance on the gravity of the charges as the decisive element, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, No. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; and Ilijkov, cited above, § 81). This is particularly true in the Russian legal system, where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - is determined by the prosecution without judicial review of whether the evidence obtained supports a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed the alleged offence (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 180).
84. The other grounds for the applicant's continued detention were the authorities' findings that the applicant might abscond, pervert the course of justice and reoffend. The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the domestic authorities to establish the existence of concrete facts



> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet