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

rt had taken into account all relevant factors, including the applicant's personality, and that it had lawfully extended the detention.

3. Trial and appeal proceedings

41. On 28 June 2004 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated fraud, unlawful possession of ammunition and forgery of documents and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.
42. On 12 October 2004 the Smolensk Regional Court amended the judgment of 28 June 2004, discontinued the criminal proceedings on the forgery charge due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period and reduced the sentence by two months.

B. Criminal proceedings on the charge of libel

43. On the morning of 16 May 2002 the applicant's car was shot at several times. The applicant, his five-year old daughter, his bodyguard and his driver were in the car. The applicant was wounded, his bodyguard received serious injuries and the driver was killed.
44. On the same day the applicant gave a press conference, at which he accused Mr M., an FSB general and candidate in the upcoming election of the Smolensk Regional Governor, of having tried to kill him.
45. A complaint lodged by Mr M. with the Smolensk Regional Prosecutor led to the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant on a charge of criminal libel on 18 May 2002.
46. On 19 August 2002 the applicant, in the presence of his lawyer, Ms Karlova, was served with the final text of the bill of indictment and was questioned as the accused. On the same day Ms Karlova began studying the case file, in compliance with the requirements of Article 53 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. Two days later the applicant and Ms Karlova finished reading the file and made handwritten notes to that effect in a case file record.
47. On 29 August 2002 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Justice of the Peace of the 7th Court Circuit of Smolensk, which, at the applicant's and Ms Karlova's request, fixed a preliminary hearing for 19 November 2002.
48. At the first trial hearing, held on 19 December 2002, the applicant successfully asked the Justice of the Peace to adjourn the proceedings to allow his lawyer to study the case file. On 22 January 2003 the Justice of the Peace granted another request by the applicant and allowed two other lawyers retained by the applicant to enter the proceedings.
49. A number of trial hearings were held between 22 January and 12 February 2003, at which the applicant was mostly represented by Ms Karlova.
50. At the trial hearing on 6 February 2003 the applicant notified the Justice of the Peace that he no longer intended to participate in the trial and that he had terminated his contracts with all his lawyers. On the same day the Justice of the Peace decided to proceed with the examination of the case in the applicant's absence, dismissed two of the applicant's lawyers from the proceedings and ordered that Ms Karlova, the applicant's third counsel, should continue representing him. The Justice adjourned the hearing until the afternoon of the same day. After the lunch break, the hearing resumed. Ms Karlova read out the applicant's repeated refusal of her services and left the courtroom, without waiting for the Justice's response to it.
51. On 7 February 2003 the Justice of the Peace held that Ms Karlova had committed contempt of court because she had left the courtroom without permission. The Justice also sent a notification to the President of the Smolensk Regional Bar Association concerning Ms Karlova's actions and asking him to ensure that she attended the following hearing.
52. Ms Karlova attended the following hearing. She informed the Justice that she refused to assist the applicant, referring to his refusal of her services.

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 25 26 27

0.1281 с