Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Макаренко (Makarenko) против России» [англ.]

nt's lawyer's application for the applicant's release.
29. A week later the lawyer lodged an appeal against the District Court's decision.
30. On 18 November 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court, relying on Article 355 § 5 (2) of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, discontinued the appeal proceedings, finding that the release application had been examined and dismissed at the trial hearing and that such a decision was not amenable to appeal.
(g) Decision of 13 November 2003
31. On 13 November 2003 the Leninskiy District Court held a trial hearing. At that hearing the applicant's lawyer asked for the applicant's release under his own recognisance. The District Court dismissed the request, noting that there were no grounds for the release.
32. The applicant's lawyer, invoking Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, appealed against the decision of 13 November 2003.
33. On 30 December 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 November 2003. The Regional Court held that the grounds warranting the applicant's detention had not changed and, thus, the request for release had been dismissed lawfully.
(h) Detention order of 19 November 2003
34. On 19 November 2003 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed another application for the applicant's release. It held that no new grounds authorising the applicant's release had been established. That decision was upheld on appeal on 30 December 2003 by the Smolensk Regional Court, which endorsed the District Court's reasoning.
(i) Requests for release of 24 November 2003 and decisions of 29 December 2003 and 30 January 2004
35. On 24 November 2003 the applicant's lawyer requested the applicant's release on a written undertaking not to leave the town. The Leninskiy District Court refused to examine the request, finding that it was a mere restatement of the lawyer's previous release applications.
36. At the trial hearing on 29 December 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully asked the District Court to release him. On 6 April 2004 the Smolensk Regional Court examined the lawyers' appeal against the decision of 29 December 2003, upholding that decision as lawful. The Regional Court confirmed the District Court's opinion that there were no grounds authorising the applicant's release.
37. On 30 January 2004 the District Court adjourned the proceedings because the applicant's co-defendant was ill. The lawyers unsuccessfully petitioned for the applicant's release. On 16 March 2004 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 January 2004 because there were no new grounds justifying the release.
(j) Detention order of 26 February 2004
38. On 26 February 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 26 May 2004. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
"[The applicant] is accused of having committed intentional mercenary and serious crimes. The circumstances which served as the basis for remanding [the applicant] in custody have not changed. New circumstances justifying [the applicant's] release... have not appeared.
The trial investigation has not been finished, [the court] continues to examine the evidence. If released, the accused may obstruct establishment of the truth in the case, abscond or commit new crimes."
39. On 30 March 2004 the Smolensk Regional Court endorsed the reasons given by the District Court on 26 February 2004 and upheld that decision.
(k) Detention order of 26 May 2004
40. On 26 May 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 26 August 2004 for the same reasons as in the decision of 26 February 2004. That decision became final on 6 July 2004, when the Regional Court upheld it on appeal, finding that the District Cou



> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet