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

the Netherlands, No. 49902/99, § 58, 11 May 2004, and Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII). In particular, in the case of Eriksen v. Norway, the Court considered that the applicant's detention was justified under both sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article 5 § 1 and found that Article 5 § 3 was applicable (see Eriksen v. Norway, 27 May 1997, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III).
144. In the present case, on 6 April 2004 the applicant was convicted of unlawful possession of arms and forgery of documents and sentenced to a term of imprisonment which he completed on 28 January 2006. During that period he was detained "after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a). At the same time, he was held in custody in connection with an unrelated set of criminal proceedings for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of being a member of an armed criminal gang and having committed robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder, a situation envisaged in Article 5 § 1 (c). It accordingly follows that, from 6 April 2004 to 28 January 2006, the applicant's deprivation of liberty fell within the ambit of both sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article 5 § 1. Taking into account that the applicant was detained on the basis of Article 5 § 1 (c), and notwithstanding the fact that his detention was also grounded on Article 5 § 1 (a), the Court considers that this period should be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 3. Therefore, the applicant has been continuously detained pending trial on the charges of membership of an armed criminal gang, robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder, since his placement in custody on 29 April 2003 until now, that is for more than five years and ten months.
(ii) Reasonableness of the length of the period in issue
145. It is not disputed by the parties that the applicant's detention was initially warranted by a reasonable suspicion of his membership of an armed criminal gang and his involvement in the commission of robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder. It remains to be ascertained whether the judicial authorities gave "relevant" and "sufficient" grounds to justify his continued detention and whether they displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings. The inordinate length of the applicant's detention is a matter of grave concern for the Court. In these circumstances, the Russian authorities should have put forward very weighty reasons for keeping the applicant in detention for more than more than five years and ten months.
146. The judicial authorities relied, in addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, on the risk of his absconding, reoffending or interfering with witnesses or jurors. In this respect they referred to the gravity of the charges, with particular emphasis on the charge of membership of an armed criminal gang, and the absence of permanent employment.
147. The gravity of the charges was the main factor for the assessment of the applicant's potential to abscond, reoffend or obstruct the course of justice. Thus, in the appeal decisions of 14 December 2004, 26 September and 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court found that the gravity of the charges outweighed the specific facts militating in favour of the applicant's release, such as the considerable length of his detention pending trial, his permanent place of residence and poor health (see paragraphs 63, 70 and 73 above). The courts assumed that the gravity of the charge carried such a preponderant weight that no other circumstances could have obtained the applicant's release. The Court has repeatedly held that, although the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk that an accused might abscond or reoffend, the n



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet