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

l treatment.
41. Having heard the parties, Judge A. found that the applicant should remain in custody, on account of the gravity of the charges and the risk of her absconding. The judge further rejected the applicant's complaints about her health as groundless. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 13 September 2000.
42. On 23 August 2000 the investigator refused to release the applicant, making a general reference to the absence of any circumstances proving that her detention was no longer needed.

5. The applicant's detention between 25 August 2000
and 25 October 2000

43. On 25 August 2000 the applicant's case was forwarded to the Town Court for examination.
44. On 4 September 2000 Judge K. of the Town Court remitted the case for a further investigation and stated that the applicant should remain in custody in view of the seriousness of the charges.
45. The applicant appealed against the above decision in so far as it concerned her detention.
46. On 25 October 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
47. Meanwhile, on 22 August 2000 the deputy Prosecutor General had authorised the applicant's detention until 25 October 2000. This order was served on the applicant on 15 September 2000.
48. On 17 September 2000 the applicant challenged the extension of her custody period before the Town Court, complaining, in particular, that she had not been notified of the order of 22 August 2000 in time.
49. At the hearing on 25 September 2000 the applicant also referred to the poor state of her health and the absence of any risk that she might abscond or hinder the investigation, which was at an end. Her arguments were examined and rejected as unfounded. Having acknowledged the fact that the order of 22 August 2000 had not been served on the applicant in due time, the court held that this fact did not affect the legal force of the extension order or the lawfulness of the applicant's detention. It therefore ordered the applicant's continued detention, with reference to the gravity of the charges against her. On 25 October 2000 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.
50. On 16 October 2000 the applicant requested the investigator to release her.
51. On 17 October 2000 the investigator informed the applicant that there were no reasons to release her.
52. On 20 October 2000 the case was again transferred to the Town Court for examination on the merits.

6. The applicant's detention between 26 October 2000
and 6 February 2001

53. On 4 November 2000 Judge K. of the Town Court scheduled a hearing in the applicant's case and held that "in view of the gravity of the charges [against the applicant] the measure of restraint applied to her should remain unchanged". The decision did not specify the time-limit for the applicant's detention, nor did it refer to any other matters regarding the lawfulness of her detention.
54. On 17 November 2000 the applicant appealed against the above decision in so far as it related to her detention. She claimed that between 25 October 2000, when the period of her remand in custody had expired, and 4 November 2000 her detention had had no basis in domestic law. She further complained that the court had ignored her submissions about the state of her health.
55. On 13 December 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding that her detention was lawful. The court stated that the applicant had been charged with serious crimes, and could be detained on the sole ground of the dangerousness of those offences. With regard to the applicant's argument concerning her detention between 25 October 2000 and 4 November 2000, the court noted that the applicant's case file, including the i

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 24 25 26

0.1486 с