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

licant was serving his sentence in an unrelated criminal case, the domestic courts continued to refer to the danger of his absconding, reoffending or interfering with witness and jurors in their extension orders. The Court accepts that it may be necessary to issue custody orders in respect of convicted prisoners, for example to make possible the person's transfer from the correctional colony where he is serving his sentence to a detention facility situated in the area where the investigation and trial are conducted. However, in the present case the domestic courts did not refer to such a necessity. Instead, they repeated the stereotyped formula without any assessment of whether, considering the applicant's detention in a correctional colony, the risk of fleeing from justice, reoffending or intimidating witnesses or jurors was real. The Court considers that the extension orders issued between 6 April 2004 and 28 January 2006 clearly attested to the domestic courts' perfunctory attitude to the applicant's detention, which was extended automatically without concrete relevant facts being addressed or the changing circumstances taken into account. Although it is true that the extension orders issued during that period did not affect the applicant's situation in practical terms, as he was in any event being held after conviction by a competent court, this fact is not decisive for the Court's assessment. The existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage; the question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable position or sustained damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many authorities, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, No. 40825/98, § 67, 31 July 2008; Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, § 38, Series A No. 185-A; and Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 27, Series A No. 31).
152. The Court observes that all decisions extending the applicant's detention on remand were stereotypically worded and in summary form. They did not describe in detail the applicant's personal situation. Although in one of the extension orders the Regional Court stated that it had taken into account "the defendants' characters", this statement was not accompanied by any description of the applicant's character or an explanation as to why it made his detention necessary (see paragraph 71 above). The domestic authorities' reluctance to devote proper attention to discussion of the applicant's personal situation is particularly manifest in the Regional Court's decisions of 20 and 27 April 2004, which gave no grounds whatsoever for the applicant's continued detention. The Regional Court only noted that "the defendants should remain in custody" (see paragraphs 60 and 61 above). It is even more striking that by that time the applicant had already spent a year in custody, the investigation had been completed and the case referred for trial.
153. After the case had been submitted for trial in April 2004 the trial court issued collective detention orders using the same summary formula to extend the detention of six persons. The Court has already found that the practice of issuing collective detention orders without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each detainee is incompatible, in itself, with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Shcheglyuk, cited above, § 45; Korchuganova, cited above, § 76; and Dolgova v. Russia, No. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006). By extending the applicant's detention by means of collective detention orders the domestic authorities had no proper regard to his individual circumstances.
154. Lastly, the Court notes that the domestic authorities explicitly refused to consider whether the length of the applicant's detention had exceeded a "reasonable time" (see paragraphs 73 and 80 ab



> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet