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

Government's submission for the reasons set out below.
91. The Court has on many occasions examined the peculiar feature of the Russian legal framework consisting of detention "pending investigation" and detention "pending trial", and the corresponding methods of calculating relevant periods of detention (see paragraphs 56 and 57 above) (see Khudoyorov, cited above, in fine). In such a framework, several non-consecutive periods of detention within one set of criminal proceedings can be classified as "pending investigation" or "pending trial", for instance when the trial judge returns the case to the prosecutor (see paragraph 58 above). Although the Court cannot assess as such the "lawfulness" of the applicant's detention before 2 June 2006 for the reason set out in paragraph 87 above, it will have regard to the relevant circumstances for its analysis in relation to the applicant's detention on the basis of the detention order under review.
92. In that connection, the Court notes that the earlier order of 13 February 2006 did not refer to Article 255 of the CCrP, did not set a time-limit and did not state reasons for maintaining the applicant in custody or for a periodic review of the preventive measure. The remand judge did, however, refer to Article 237 of the CCrP, which required that after receipt of the case file from the judge the prosecutor should comply with his or her instructions within five days. This was not done in the present case. In the meantime, from 13 February to 29 May 2006 the applicant's case was neither with the trial judge nor with the prosecuting authority. Thus, already at that point the applicant was placed in a situation of uncertainty as to the grounds for his continued detention.
93. On 2 June 2006 the regional court extended his detention until 29 July 2006 so that the total period of detention (under Article 109 of the CCrP), it stated, would amount to sixteen months and twenty-four days. The Court notes that the remand judge did not specify the paragraph on which he based this remand order. Even accepting that the appeal court might have remedied that shortcoming by itself referring to Article 109 § 7 of the CCrP (see paragraph 17 above), the Court is not convinced that the national courts correctly calculated the relevant term of detention. The Court considers that the applicant's detention from 9 December 2004 to 7 February 2006 was regulated under Article 109 of the CCrP (see paragraphs 11 and 60 above). His detention from 7 to 13 February 2006 was authorised under Article 255 of the Code. The Government did not substantiate their assertion concerning the applicability of Article 255 from 13 February to 27 April 2006 (see paragraph 58 above). They did, however, accept that the detention from 27 April to 2 June 2006 was covered by Article 109 of the CCrP.
94. The Court notes that neither the prosecutor's extension request nor the order itself contained any indication as to how the overall period of detention was calculated. However, this matter was of fundamental importance for the applicant who claimed that no further extension of his detention would be lawful under the CCrP. If the period from 13 February to 2 June 2006 was regulated under Article 109 of the CCrP, it meant that by the latter date the applicant had already spent seventeen months and sixteen days in detention under that provision. In the Court's opinion, the absence of sufficiently precise rules concerning the legal grounds for detention following the return of the case to the prosecutor seriously affected the "lawfulness" of the applicant's detention since the national courts' reasoning was premised on the fact that the applicant's detention as extended would not exceed the eighteen months' limit.
95. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Court is not satisfied that the detention order of 2 June 2006 was based on



> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet