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

d the defendants' detention until 12 October 2007, finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure.
77. In his grounds of appeal the applicant submitted that the length of his detention had exceeded a reasonable time and asked the court to place him under home arrest. On 27 September 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.
78. On 11 October 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2008, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding or intimidating the witnesses or jurors.
79. On 9 January 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 April 2008 for the same reasons as before.
80. On 8 April 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court rejected the applicant's request to be released under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2008. The decision reads as follows:
"As the trial has not yet been completed, it is necessary to extend the defendants' detention.
The court considers that the gravity of the charges justifies applying to the defendants a preventive measure in the form of detention.
However, in addition to the gravity of the charges - namely organisation of an armed gang under [the applicant's] leadership and commission of assaults on citizens and murders - carrying a sentence of up to twenty years' imprisonment for each of the defendants, the court also takes into account other factors.
Thus, the court is entitled to believe that... application to the defendants of an undertaking not to leave the town or other preventive measures will not exclude the possibility of their absconding or exercising pressure on participants to the proceedings and jurors.
The defendants' argument that their detention has been excessively long is not in itself sufficient to warrant release.
The defendants have not produced any material showing the existence of factors making impossible [sic] their stay in detention facility conditions.
The court is not convinced by the defendants' argument that they have not been granted access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for extension. The court has at its disposal only the materials from the criminal case file which had been studied by the defendants.
The court considers that the grounds for the detention of the defendants charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences are relevant and sufficient. Their detention serves the interest of the society, as it prevents commission of similar criminal offences and ensures high-quality and effective examination of the present criminal case.
The criminal case file contains sufficient evidence against each defendant to justify an extension of their detention..."
81. On 7 July 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2008, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008.
82. The applicant appealed, complaining that the decision had been taken in his absence and that the court had relied only on the gravity of the charges against him. On 10 September 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.
83. On 10 October 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendant's detention until 12 January 2009, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008.

D. Impounding of the applicant's cars

84. On 4 April 2003 the investigator impounded the applicant's two cars as physical evidence in the criminal proceedings against him.
85. On 30 January 2006 the Dzerzhinskiy D



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet