Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Гултяева (Gultyayeva) против России» [англ.]

efused the monitoring, stating that the device was outdated.
119. On 22 June 2000 the applicant was attended and examined by the head of the Tselitel medical centre, who concluded that the applicant was suffering from premenopausal syndrome and suggested that she undergo treatment with hormonal medicines.
120. On 12 July 2000 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, who diagnosed her with influenza and administered relevant treatment.
121. On 9 August 2000 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, who found that she had post-cholecystectomy syndrome. She was prescribed relevant treatment.
122. On 30 August 2000 the applicant was examined by a duty paramedic as she stated that she had been on hunger strike since 25 August 2000. The paramedic weighed the applicant and took her blood pressure. Her physical condition was found to be satisfactory.
123. On 13 October 2000 a general practitioner examined the applicant, took her blood pressure and, at the applicant's request, prescribed her the medicines which had been delivered by her family members.
124. On 26 October 2000 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and diagnosed with influenza. Relevant treatment was prescribed.
125. On 14 November 2000 the applicant was examined by a duty paramedic in connection with her complaint of headaches and weakness. The paramedic found that she had vegetative-vascular dystonia and recommended relevant treatment.
126. On 28 December 2000 a general practitioner diagnosed the applicant with acute laryngotracheitis and prescribed relevant treatment.
127. On 18 January 2001 the applicant was attended and treated by a general practitioner in connection with pharyngitis and vegetative-vascular dystonia.
128. On 8 February 2001 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, diagnosed with acute tracheobronchitis and prescribed relevant treatment.
129. On 13 February 2001 the applicant was attended and treated by a general practitioner in connection with protracted tracheitis. On 15 February 2001 the general practitioner again examined the applicant and recommended that the treatment be continued.
130. On 6 March 2002 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and diagnosed with follicular tonsillitis. Relevant treatment was prescribed. On 10 March 2002 she was attended by a duty paramedic who recommended that she continue with the treatment.
131. During the period of her detention in remand centre IZ-62/1 the applicant underwent fluorography examinations on six occasions; the examination disclosed no pathologies.

D. The seizure of the applicant's flat

132. On 3 March 2000 the investigator in charge ordered the seizure of the applicant's flat pending trial.
133. On 16 March 2000 a deputy regional prosecutor rejected the applicant's complaint against the investigator's order.
134. On 28 July 2000 the applicant applied to a court, stating that the flat in question was the only housing for her family and therefore was immune from seizure.
135. On 8 August 2000 the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court found in the applicant's favour and lifted the seizure.
136. On 3 October 2000, on an appeal by the regional prosecutor, the Sakhalin Regional Court quashed the above judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
137. It appears that, following the applicant's conviction, on 11 March 2002, the Town Court lifted the seizure of the applicant's flat in a separate set of proceedings. The court noted that this apartment was the permanent place of residence for the applicant's family and was not subject to confiscation.
138. On 12 March 2002 the Town Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant's action of 28 July 2000, s

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 24 25 26

0.1365 с