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

rules which could be considered as sufficiently precise. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
96. In view of the above findings, there is no need to examine separately the applicant's remaining arguments in relation to this detention order.

III. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

97. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand had been excessively long and lacked sufficient justification. Article 5 § 3 reads in the relevant part as follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."

A. Submissions by the parties

98. The applicant confirmed that he had both Russian and German nationality. However, he insisted that he had a place of residence in Russia at the material time, had a stable household and was living at his wife's relatives' flat. The authorities had not displayed particular diligence, given that the case had been returned to the prosecutor on three occasions. He had been charged only in respect of five episodes, none of which concerned any alleged criminal activities after the year 2003.
99. The Government submitted that the detention decisions in respect of the applicant had been based on relevant and sufficient considerations. The case against him was particularly complex and was linked to more than thirty criminal files, including emerging episodes of criminal activity on the part of an organised group or a criminal gang. The decision to join various episodes was justified with a view to avoiding possible duplication of the proceedings. In total, the applicant and his co-accused were charged in relation to more than fifty episodes of criminal activities between 2002 and 2005 relating mainly to drug trafficking. The case file at the time of being studied by the accused was voluminous (4,500 pages). No less than one hundred persons were questioned as witnesses, including those residing or detained outside the Tomsk Region. Thirty complex forensic reports had been commissioned in the course of the proceedings. Moreover, there was a risk that the applicant would flee investigation and justice in view of the gravity of the charges against him for offences punishable with long custodial sentences. The courts had also taken into account that the applicant had no permanent place of residence in Tomsk or elsewhere in Russia; that he had German nationality; and that his place of residence and that of his relatives and friends, as well as his sources of income, were all located in Germany. The courts had also had regard to the applicant's personality, in particular his involvement in drug trafficking and smuggling, and to the fact that he had set up and supervised the supply of drugs from Germany to Russia and was an active member of a criminal gang in the Tomsk Region. If at large, he could have put pressure on the co-accused or witnesses both before and during the trial. His previous criminal record (dealing in firearms) and his predisposition to criminal activity supported the argument that he could continue his criminal activities, if released. The courts had examined the arguments of the defence and had given reasoned decisions dismissing them. Less stringent preventive measures could not be applied in the absence of any permanent place of residence. Neither would financial sureties, whatever their value, be sufficient for securing the applicant's presence at the trial. Lastly, the authorities had displayed particular diligence in the conduct of the proceedings, while the applicant and his counsel had protracted the proceedings.

B. The Court's assessme



> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet