Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Штейн (Shteyn (Stein)) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 23691/06)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 18.VI.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 23691/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian and German national, Mr Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Shteyn (Stein <*>) ("the applicant"), on 23 May 2006.
--------------------------------
<*> The applicant's name in his German passport.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr E. Terbalyan and Mr K. Filippov, lawyers practising in Tomsk. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk and Mr A. Savenkov, former Representative and former acting Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights respectively.
3. On 5 December 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) and to grant priority treatment to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court). On the same date, the German Government were informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (b). They chose not to avail themselves of this right.
4. The Russian Government objected to the priority treatment and the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objections, the Court dismissed them.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1980 and is being detained in Remand Centre IZ-70/1 of Tomsk, Russia.

A. The applicant's detention

6. A Ms M named the applicant as her supplier of MDMA pills also known as "ecstasy". On 9 December 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk authorised a search in the flat where the applicant was living. A pile of documents, cash and pills were seized. On the same day the applicant was arrested on suspicion of supplying 8.86 gm of MDMA to a Mr V (his co-accused in subsequent proceedings). By a decision of 10 December 2004, the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk authorised his detention. His detention was then extended on 4 February and 6 April 2005 until 9 April and 2 June 2005 respectively. His offer of a deposit of 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as surety for bail was refused.
7. On 18 May 2005 the applicant was charged with smuggling 77 gm of MDMA and 31 gm of amphetamine from Germany to Russia. His detention was extended on 31 May and 25 July 2005 un



> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet