the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir ("the district court") ordered the applicant's placement in custody reasoning that he had been charged with a serious crime and that, if he remained at liberty, he could have absconded or interfered with the investigation or continued his unlawful activities.
9. On 3 June 2004 the district court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 4 July 2004.
10. On 2 July 2004 the district court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 4 August 2004 for the reason that the investigators needed to take certain steps and that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and, once released, could have absconded, continued unlawful activities and impeded the investigation.
11. On 5 August 2004 the investigators transferred the file in the applicant's criminal case to the district court.
12. On 16 August 2004 the district court scheduled a hearing on 27 August 2004 and ruled that the preventive measure applied to the applicant remain unchanged.
13. On 27 August 2004 the hearing was postponed until 28 September 2004 due to the absence of witnesses.
14. On 28 September 2004 at counsel for the applicant's request the district court decided to return the case file to the prosecutor's office for further investigation. Ten days later the case was transferred to the investigators.
15. On 18 November 2004 the prosecutor's office transferred the case to the district court. On 22 November 2004 the district court received the case file.
16. On 30 November 2004 the district court scheduled a hearing for 9 December 2004 and ruled that the preventive measure remain unchanged.
17. On 8 December 2004 the hearing was postponed until 17 January 2005 upon counsel for the applicant's request.
18. On 17 January 2005 the applicant's counsel filed an application for the applicant's release pending trial, arguing that upon arrival of the case file at the district court the term of the detention had been extended in the absence of the parties to the proceedings. On the same date the application was dismissed for the reason that, having received an investigation file, a court had to schedule a hearing and decide on any preventive measure to be applied to a suspect.
19. On 24 January 2005 the applicant's counsel appealed against the ruling of 17 January 2005.
20. On 1 February 2005 the district court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 3 May 2005 for the reason that the applicant had been charged with particularly serious crimes. The applicant's counsel appealed against the decision. He invoked Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and argued, in particular, that the district court had not considered the possibility of applying other preventive measures, such as release on bail, and had not taken into account the applicant's personal circumstances. He emphasised that the applicant had a child of under one year of age, had no previous criminal record, had a permanent job and had positive references.
21. Between 7 February and 22 April 2005 the district court's hearings were postponed on several occasions.
22. On 9 March 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court ("the regional court") dismissed the applicant's counsel's appeal and upheld the ruling of 17 January 2005.
23. On 22 March 2005 the regional court dismissed the applicant's representative's appeal and upheld the decision of 1 February 2005.
24. On 27 April 2005 the district court extended the term of the applicant's pre-trial detention until 3 August 2005 for the reason that the applicant had been charged with particularly serious crimes.
25. On 28 April 2005 the district court returned the investigation file to the prosecutor's office and noted that the preventive measur
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 33 34 35
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
