Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Губкин (Gubkin) против России» [англ.]

e with a procedure prescribed by law". To this effect the Court will turn to the domestic law (see paragraph 109 above).
121. The Court observes at the outset that the domestic law does not contain an explicit provision stipulating that the questions of application and extension of a custodial measure are determined by the same bench that examines the criminal case on the merits. The Court notes, however, that in the present case the extension of the applicant's detention on 19 February 2004 was authorised by the same bench which subsequently delivered the judgment in the applicant's case on 17 May 2004.
122. The Court further observes that the trial bench in question was composed under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR which provided that serious crimes were to be examined by a professional judge and two lay judges (see paragraph 77 above). While the proceedings were pending before the trial court, the new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force. Although the new Code abolished the participation of lay judges, it maintained the principle that the trial bench should remain unchanged throughout the trial (see paragraph 78 above).
123. Therefore, the Court concludes that the court which extended the applicant's detention on 19 February 2004 acted within its powers in making the above decision, and there is nothing to suggest that this decision was invalid or otherwise unlawful under domestic law. The question whether the reasons for the decision were sufficient and relevant is analysed below in connection with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3.
124. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of the detention order issued on 19 February 2004.
(d) Summary of the findings
125. The Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 12 February to 1 July 2002.
126. The Court has found no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention in the period from 1 July 2002 to 17 May 2004.

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

127. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the duration of his pre-trial detention had been in breach of the reasonable-time requirement. Article 5 § 3 provides 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..."

A. Submissions by the parties

128. The Government submitted that the Court should apply the six-month rule and only examine the period of the applicant's detention "during the trial". They further submitted that the period of the applicant's detention had not been unreasonable, that it had been in accordance with the national legislation and had been based on relevant and sufficient grounds. The applicant's continuous detention had been indispensable given the number and the seriousness of the charges against him and had been aimed at preventing further criminal activity.
129. The applicant argued that at no stage of the proceedings had the domestic authorities addressed the issue of the reasonableness of his continued detention. Despite his numerous requests the domestic court had never considered the possibility of applying a more lenient preventive measure. Besides, from 1 July 2002 onwards the domestic court had persistently applied the same stereotyped formula to justify the applicant's continued detention: the Regional Court had reproduced the same text - a paragraph long - in eight extension orders successively and in respect of five different persons, including the applicant. The only ground for the app



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet