n 1 February 2000, having examined the materials in criminal case No. 76574, the prosecutor's office decided that it had sufficient evidence that funds belonging to the State-owned Central Bank had been misappropriated in the course of the construction of its main computer centre in Moscow by Rosbankstroy. Mr K. and the applicant were alleged to have unlawfully overpriced the construction work. The prosecutor's office decided to open a new criminal case and the next day brought misappropriation charges against the applicant.
12. On 14 March 2000 the Altay Regional Court convicted the applicant of bribery and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.
13. On 28 March 2000 the new criminal case concerning the misappropriation of the Central Bank's funds was joined with the case concerning the misappropriation of Rosbankstroy's funds. The joined case retained the number 76574.
14. On 11 July 2000 the Supreme Court partly quashed the conviction of bribery, discharged the applicant from the obligation to serve his sentence on the basis of the State Duma's amnesty act and ordered his release. However, the applicant was not released and remained in detention facility IZ-17/1.
15. On 14 July 2000 the prosecutor of the Altay Region ordered the applicant's detention pending trial on the charge of misappropriation of the Central Bank's funds in case No. 76574.
16. The applicant appealed. He argued, in particular, that he had been detained pending investigation since 25 June 1999 and the term of his detention had been extended for up to six months. The case concerning the bribery charge had been examined by a court and the Supreme Court had, in the decision of 11 July 2000, exempted him from serving his sentence. The new case concerning the alleged misappropriation of the Central Bank's funds had been joined with the earlier case concerning the alleged misappropriation of Rosbankstroy's funds, pending the outcome of which he had already been detained. Accordingly, in the absence of a duly authorised extension, his continuing detention was unlawful.
17. On 14 August 2000 the applicant's appeal was dismissed by a judge of the Barnaul Central District Court.
18. The District Court's decision of 14 August 2000 was appealed against by the applicant and quashed on 21 September 2000 by the Altay Regional Court for failure to state sufficient reasons. The lawfulness of the detention order of 14 July 2000 was re-examined and confirmed on 12 October 2000 by another judge of the District Court. The applicant appealed. On 9 November 2000 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision.
19. On 28 June 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Barnaul convicted the applicant of large-scale fraud in respect of the Central Bank's funds and of attempted large-scale fraud in respect of the property of the Altaymarketcentre Karavan company. The applicant was sentenced to five years and one month's imprisonment and an order was also made for the confiscation of his property. The judgment was upheld by the Altay Regional Court on 31 October 2002.
20. The applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of his case. On 19 October 2004 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court granted his application, quashed the judgment of 28 June 2002, as upheld on 31 October 2002, and terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti.
THE LAW
21. The Court observes that it decided, on 16 December 2008, to declare admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant's complaint concerning the State's failure to release him in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision of 11 July 2000 (see paragraph 14 above). It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. Following the decision on admissibility, in a letter of 19 Dec
> 1 2 3
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
