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

y.
14. On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.
15. On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial.
16. On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges.
17. On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors.
18. On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was "opportune" to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, as it could not exclude the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses or jurors.
19. On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including the charge of being members of an armed criminal gang.
20. On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before.
21. On 22 December 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 April 2006 for the same reasons as before.
22. The applicant appealed against the extension order of 22 December 2005. In his grounds of appeal he complained that the Regional Court's conclusions had been hypothetical and had not been supported by relevant facts. The court had relied essentially on the gravity of the charges against him, disregarding his arguments that he had permanent residence and employment, and was the only breadwinner for his elderly parents. On 4 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.
23. On 5 July 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2006 for the same reasons as before.
24. On 2 October 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges and the defendants' "characters". The court also indicated that the purpose of the detention was to eliminate any risk of the defendants' absconding, re-offending or hampering the court proceedings.
25. The applicant appealed, claiming that the Regional Court had used a stereotyped formula to justify his detention and that its conclusions that he might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings were not supported by relevant facts. He had a permanent place of residence and employment and was taking care after his elderly parents.
26. On 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. The defendants were charged with serious criminal offences, and they might therefore abscond, re-offend or obstruct the proceedings. The allegedly excessive length of their detention, their poor health, elderly parents or permanent place of residence were not sufficient reasons to warrant release.
27. On 27 December 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 April 2007 for the same reasons as before.
28. On 10 April 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2007 for the same reasons as before.
29. On 9 July 2007 the Vol

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13

0.0327 с