Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 19.03.2009 «Дело Шкилев (Shkilev) против России» [англ.]

f detention, taking into account how much time had already been spent in custody. The Court therefore dismisses the Government's objection.
46. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Arguments by the parties

47. The Government submitted that the applicant had been charged with many particularly serious criminal offences. He was moreover suspected of being an active member of an armed criminal gang committing crimes on a regular basis and presenting an increased danger to society. Referring to the case of Contrada v. Italy (24 August 1998, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V), they submitted that his membership of a mafia-type organisation with a rigid hierarchical structure and substantial power of intimidation had complicated and lengthened the criminal proceedings. It had been necessary to hold the applicant in custody during the investigation and trial to prevent his interfering with witnesses and jurors who lived in the same area and were not segregated from society. The domestic courts had justified the extensions of his detention by reference to the fact that he did not have a registered place of residence in the Volgograd region, as he lived permanently in another region, the Kalmykiya Republic. The Government considered the applicant's detention had been founded on "relevant and sufficient" reasons.
48. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had not advanced "relevant and sufficient" reasons to hold him in custody. They had relied essentially on the gravity of the charges, without demonstrating the existence of specific facts in support of their conclusion that he might abscond, interfere with the investigation or reoffend. They had disregarded his arguments that he had no criminal record, had a permanent place of residence and employment, and was the only breadwinner for his wife and minor daughter.

2. The Court's assessment

(a) General principles
49. The Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention. However after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
50. The presumption is in favour of release. As the Court has consistently held, the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial. Until his conviction, the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continued detention ceases to be reasonable. A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, No. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; {Jablonski} v. Poland, No. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, § 4, 27 June 1968, Series A No. 8). Article 5 § 3 of the Convention cannot be seen as unconditionally authorising detention provi



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet