|
Стр. 4
- того, что ходатайство заявителя об освобождении от 4 сентября
2001 г. и его жалоба на Судебное решение от 13 марта 2002 г. не
были рассмотрены "безотлагательно";
- того, что не были рассмотрены кассационные жалобы заявителя
на Постановление от 9 января 2002 г. о продлении срока содержания
под стражей;
- того, что жалобы заявителя на Судебные решения от 18 ноября и
4 декабря 2002 г. не были рассмотрены по существу.
IV. Предполагаемое нарушение пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции
209. По своей инициативе Европейский суд поставил вопрос о том,
соответствовала ли продолжительность судебного разбирательства
уголовного дела в отношении заявителя требованиям пункта 1 статьи
6 Конвенции, который в части, применимой к настоящему делу,
гласит:
"Каждый... при предъявлении ему любого уголовного обвинения
имеет право на... разбирательство дела в разумный срок...
судом...".
1. Доводы сторон
210. Власти Российской Федерации утверждали, что
продолжительность судебного разбирательства была разумной,
учитывая объем уголовного дела (22 тома), количество подсудимых
(21 человек) и свидетелей (более 100 человек), привлечение
переводчиков, регулярные неявки адвокатов подсудимых, включая
адвоката заявителя, в суд, а также их ходатайства об отложении
судебных заседаний по различным причинам.
211. Заявитель утверждал, что только 12 томов дела касались
существа обвинения, в то время как в остальных содержались только
процессуальные документы. Следователи "искусственно раздули" объем
материалов дела, поскольку они предъявили всем подозреваемым
обвинения в совершении тяжких и особо тяжких преступлений, не имея
достаточной доказательственной базы. По мнению заявителя, решение
прокуратуры об отказе от значительной части обвинения во время
заключительных прений, а также вынесение оправдательного приговора
по оставшейся части обвинения подтверждали его позицию. Вопреки
утверждениям властей Российской Федерации свидетелей было 61, и
каждый из них давал показания на протяжении примерно 15 минут.
Относительно переводчиков заявитель подчеркнул, что только по вине
национальных властей перевод не был обеспечен в должное время, что
повлекло направление дела для производства дополнительного
расследования и задержку судебного разбирательства. По поводу
действий адвокатов заявитель сообщил, что в исключительно редких
случаях судебное заседание откладывалось из-за отсутствия его
адвоката, и, в любом случае, он был согласен на рассмотрение дела
в отсутствие адвоката.
212. Заявитель утверждал, что наиболее значительные задержки в
ходе судебного процесса были вызваны действиями властей: копии
процессуальных документов передавались подсудимым через несколько
недель после истечения сроков, установленных законодательством
Российской Федерации. У рассматривавшего его дело суда на
назначение первого заседания (9 января 2002 г.) ушло 96 дней, а
перерывы между заседаниями иногда достигали 27 дней. Время
передачи материалов дела из Владимирского областного суда в
Верховный суд Российской Федерации было чрезмерно долгим и
составляло от 25 до 40 дней. Наконец, с 10 июля 2003 г. по 15
марта 2004 г. Владимирский областной суд установил более плотный
график судебных заседаний, чтобы избежать перерывов
продолжительностью от двух до десяти дней.
2. Мнение Европейского суда
213. Период, который необходимо принимать во внимание в
настоящем деле, начался 22 января 1999 г., когда заявителя
заключили под стражу. Он завершился 21 марта 2005 г. с отменой
Верховным судом Российской Федерации обжалованных постановлений.
Таким образом, уголовный процесс по делу заявителя длился шесть
лет и два месяца.
214. Европейский суд признал, что дело заявителя было довольно
сложным, так как оно касалось значительного числа преступлений,
связанных с оборотом наркотических веществ, предположительно,
совершенных более чем 20 лицами. Необходимость в услугах
переводчиков узбекского и таджикского языков еще больше затрудняла
дело. Однако, по мнению Европейского суда, сложность дела сама по
себе не является достаточным основанием для его длительного
рассмотрения.
215. Замечания властей Российской Федерации о постоянных
неявках адвоката не были детализованы (они не указали даты неявок
или, по крайней мере, сколько раз адвокат отсутствовал на
заседаниях) и не были подкреплены доказательствами (например,
выдержками из протоколов судебных заседаний). Поэтому Европейский
суд счел несостоятельным заявление властей Российской Федерации о
том, что задержки в судебном разбирательстве происходили, главным
образом, по вине самого заявителя.
216. Вместе с тем Европейский суд признал, что главной причиной
задержек в рассмотрении дела было поведение властей Российской
Федерации: три раза Владимирский областной суд был вынужден
возвращать дело для производства предварительного расследования,
чтобы органы следствия могли исправить нарушения прав обвиняемых,
как, например, отсутствие перевода материалов дела, делавшее
невозможным рассмотрение дела по существу. В данном контексте
Европейский суд сослался на свой вывод в разделе, посвященном
предполагаемому нарушению пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции, о том, что
национальные органы не проявили "особого усердия" при рассмотрении
дела заявителя (см. выше з 188). Этот вывод применим также и
вопросу о продолжительности уголовного процесса.
217. Учитывая все вышесказанное, Европейский суд счел, что
продолжительность процесса не соответствовала требованию
"разумного срока". Соответственно, имело место нарушение пункта 1
статьи 6 Конвенции.
V. Применение статьи 41 Конвенции
218. Статья 41 Конвенции гласит:
"Если Суд объявляет, что имело место нарушение Конвенции или
Протоколов к ней, а внутреннее право Высокой Договаривающейся
Стороны допускает возможность лишь частичного устранения
последствий этого нарушения, Суд, в случае необходимости,
присуждает справедливую компенсацию потерпевшей стороне".
A. Материальный ущерб
219. Заявитель требовал 14700000 долларов США, представляющих
собой сумму убытков, понесенных им в период заключения под
стражей. Он утверждал, что в результате незаконной конфискации и
опечатывания документов его компании российскими
правоохранительными органами он потерял контроль над своим
бизнесом, и на него были возложены существенные финансовые
обязательства, так как его компания не выполнила своих
обязательств перед банком-кредитором. Заявитель требовал также
6398,10 доллара США в качестве компенсации потери заработка в
течение пяти лет содержания под стражей.
220. Власти Российской Федерации оспорили наличие причинно-
следственной связи между предполагаемыми нарушениями и утратой
денежных средств, поскольку решение о привлечении заявителя к
уголовной ответственности не являлось предметом рассмотрения в
Европейском суде. Они указали также на ошибки в расчетах
заявителя.
221. Европейский суд согласился с властями Российской Федерации
в том, что не было причинно-следственной связи между
установленными нарушениями и материальным вредом, компенсацию
которого требовал заявитель (см. упоминавшееся выше Постановление
Европейского суда по делу "Сташайтис против Литвы", з 96 и
упоминавшееся выше Постановление Европейского суда по делу "Йечюс
против Литвы", з 106). Следовательно, Европейский суд не усмотрел
причин присуждать заявителю какую-либо сумму в возмещение
материального вреда.
B. Моральный вред
222. Заявитель требовал 50 тысяч евро или любую другую сумму,
которую Европейский суд признает справедливой, в качестве
компенсации морального вреда.
223. Власти Российской Федерации считали, что установление
факта нарушения явилось бы достаточно справедливой компенсацией.
Они утверждали также, что после оправдания заявитель приобрел
право на получении компенсации на национальном уровне.
224. Европейский суд отметил, что он установил совокупность
особо тяжких нарушений при рассмотрении настоящего дела.
Заявитель, который так и не был осужден за совершение
преступления, провел более пяти лет под стражей в бесчеловечных и
унижающих достоинство условиях и часто перевозился в здание суда и
обратно в условиях, которые также могут быть признаны
бесчеловечными и унижающими достоинство. Содержание его под
стражей было незаконным более одного года, а когда оно было
"законным", оно не было достаточным образом обосновано. Наконец,
ему неоднократно было отказано в его праве на безотлагательное
рассмотрение правомерности содержания его под стражей. При данных
обстоятельствах Европейский суд счел, что страдания и лишения
заявителя не могли быть компенсированы простым установлением факта
нарушения. Исходя из принципа справедливости, Европейский суд
присудил заявителю полную сумму его требования плюс любые налоги,
которые могут быть взысканы с этой суммы.
C. Судебные расходы и издержки
225. Заявитель требовал 2 тысячи евро в качестве оплаты услуг
по представительству адвоката Багрянского, 2 тысячи евро в
качестве оплаты услуг по представительству адвоката Гулаковой и
одну тысячу фунтов стерлингов в качестве оплаты услуг по
подготовке требований о справедливой компенсации адвокатом
Баурингом.
226. Власти Российской Федерации утверждали, что интересы
заявителя в Европейском суде представляли Багрянский, Овчинников и
Москаленко. В материалах дела не содержалось никаких документов,
подписанных Гулаковой или Баурингом. В любом случае, по их мнению,
суммы, потребованные заявителем, были завышенными.
227. Европейский суд отметил, прежде всего, что заявителю была
предоставлена правовая помощь в размере 701 евро для оплаты услуг
по представительству адвоката Багрянского. Так как заявитель не
обосновал судебные расходы, понесенные им в превышение этой суммы,
Европейский суд не присудил ему ничего в качестве компенсации
судебных расходов и издержек. Что касается подготовки требования о
справедливой компенсации, Европейский суд отметил, что 2 июня 2005
г. Председатель Палаты отклонил ходатайство адвоката Гулаковой о
разрешении ей представлять интересы заявителя. Действительно, имя
Бауринга встречается после требований, но он не подписал
требования, и нет указаний на то, что заявитель заплатил ему что-
либо за его услуги. Соответственно, Европейский суд не присудил
заявителю ничего в качестве компенсации судебных расходов и
издержек.
D. Процентная ставка при просрочке платежей
228. Европейский суд счел, что процентная ставка при просрочке
платежей должна быть установлена в размере предельной годовой
процентной ставки по займам Европейского центрального банка плюс
три процента.
НА ЭТИХ ОСНОВАНИЯХ СУД ЕДИНОГЛАСНО:
1) постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 3 Конвенции в
части, касающейся условий содержания заявителя под стражей в
учреждении ОД-1/Т-2 ("Владимирский централ");
2) постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 3 Конвенции в
части, касающейся условий перевозки заявителя из учреждения ОД-1/Т-
2 в здание Владимирского областного суда и обратно;
3) постановил, что нарушение пункта 1 статьи 5 Конвенции
вследствие содержания заявителя под стражей в периоды с 4 мая по 8
августа 2001 г. и с 9 января по 13 марта 2002 г. места не имело;
4) постановил, что имело место нарушение пункта 1 статьи 5
Конвенции вследствие содержания заявителя под стражей в периоды с
8 августа 2001 г. по 9 января 2002 г. и с 13 марта 2002 г. по 4
декабря 2002 г.;
5) постановил, что имело место нарушение пункта 3 статьи 5
Конвенции;
6) постановил, что имело место нарушение пункта 4 статьи 5
Конвенции вследствие чрезмерной продолжительности рассмотрения
кассационной жалобы заявителя на Судебное решение от 28 апреля
2001 г., его ходатайства об освобождении от 4 сентября 2001 г. и
его кассационной жалобы на Судебное решение от 13 марта 2002 г.;
7) постановил, что имело место нарушение пункта 4 статьи 5
Конвенции вследствие того, что кассационные жалобы заявителя на
Постановление о продлении срока содержания под стражей от 9 января
и Судебные решения от 18 ноября и 4 декабря 2002 г. не были
рассмотрены по существу;
8) постановил:
a) что государство-ответчик обязано в течение трех месяцев со
дня вступления постановления в законную силу в соответствии с
пунктом 2 статьи 44 Конвенции выплатить заявителю 50 тысяч
(пятьдесят тысяч) евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда
плюс любые налоги, которые могут быть взысканы с этой суммы;
b) что с даты истечения вышеуказанного трехмесячного срока до
момента выплаты простые проценты должны начисляться на эти суммы в
размере, равном минимальному ссудному проценту Европейского
центрального банка плюс три процента;
10) отклонил остальные требования заявителя о справедливой
компенсации.
Совершено на английском языке, и уведомление о Постановлении
направлено в письменном виде 8 ноября 2005 г. в соответствии с
пунктами 2 и 3 правила 77 Регламента Суда.
Председатель Палаты
Сэр Николас БРАТЦА
Секретарь Секции Суда
Майкл О'БОЙЛ
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KHUDOYOROV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 6847/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 8.XI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 з 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Khudoyorov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr {M. Pellonpaa},
Mr K. Traja,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 6847/02) against
the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms ("the Convention") by a national of Tajikistan, Mr
Doniyor Toshpulotovich Khudoyorov, on 29 January 2002.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was
represented before the Court by Mr F. Bagryanskiy and Mr M.
Ovchinnikov, lawyers practising in Vladimir, Mrs K. Moskalenko, a
lawyer with the International Protection Centre in Moscow, and Mr
W. Bowring, a London lawyer. The Russian Government ("the
Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions of
his detention in facility No. OD-1/T-2 and conditions of transport
to and from the courthouse had been incompatible with Article 3 of
the Convention, that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful
after 4 May 2001 and also excessively long, that his applications
for release filed after 28 April 2001 had not been considered
"speedily", if at all, and that the length of the criminal
proceedings had been excessive.
4. The application was allocated to the First Section of the
Court (Rule 52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section,
the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з 1 of the
Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
5. On 13 February 2004 the Section President decided to grant
priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
6. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
Sections (Rule 25 з 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 з 1).
7. By a decision of 22 February 2005, the Court declared the
application partly admissible.
8. The Government, but not the applicant, filed observations on
the merits (Rule 59 з 1).
9. The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no
hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 з 3 in fine).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
10. The applicant was born in 1965. On 17 August 1998 he
arrived in Russia from Tajikistan. He stayed in Vladimir at his
cousin's flat.
A. The applicant's arrest and the search of the flat
11. On 22 January 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion
of the unlawful purchase and possession of drugs. A search was
carried out in the flat where he was staying.
B. The applicant's detention pending investigation
12. On 30 January 1999 the applicant was charged under Article
228 з 1 of the Criminal Code with the unlawful purchase and
possession of 3 grams of hashish. He pleaded not guilty and
indicated that he did not need an interpreter because he had
studied in Leningrad.
13. On 12 March and 5 April 1999 the applicant's detention was
extended until 11 July 1999.
14. On 4 June 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir
refused the applicant's request for release on bail. It found that
the applicant's detention had been extended in accordance with the
law and that no grounds for releasing him could be established.
The applicant did not appeal to the Regional Court.
15. On 30 June and 2 September 1999 the applicant's detention
was extended until 21 December 1999.
16. On 2 December 1999 the acting Prosecutor General approved
the extension of the applicant's detention until 21 June 2000. The
applicant appealed to the Leninskiy District Court, which on 28
December 1999 dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had
been charged with an particularly serious criminal offence and had
resided in Vladimir only temporarily, his permanent residence
being in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, so that there was good reason to
suspect that he would abscond if released. The applicant did not
appeal against that decision to the Regional Court.
C. First remittal of the case for additional investigation
17. On 21 June 2000 the supervising prosecutor approved the
bill of indictment and the case against the applicant and twenty
co-defendants was sent to the Vladimir Regional Court for trial.
18. On 23 June and 17 July 2000 the applicant requested the
Vladimir Regional Court to review the lawfulness of his detention
on remand.
19. On 18 July 2000 the Vladimir Regional Court ordered the
case to be remitted for an additional investigation because the
bill of indictment had not been translated into the Tajik
language, even though seven of the defendants were Tajik. The
court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain
in custody.
20. On 24 July 2000 the prosecution appealed against the
decision but subsequently withdrew their appeal. On 30 August 2000
the case was returned to the Vladimir Regional Court for
examination on the merits.
D. Second remittal of the case for additional investigation
1. Reinstatement of the decision of 18 July 2000
21. On 23 November 2000 the Vladimir Regional Court ordered the
case to be remitted for an additional investigation because the
rights of some of the defendants had been unlawfully restricted.
The prosecution appealed.
22. On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation quashed the decision of 23 November 2000. It found
that, after the case had been remitted for an additional
investigation on 18 July 2000, the prosecution had not remedied
the defects identified by the Regional Court. In particular, the
prosecution had not arranged for translation of the bill of
indictment or checked that the interpreter had the requisite
skills. In view of these procedural defects, the Supreme Court
held that all the subsequent judicial decisions had been unlawful
and remitted the case to the Regional Court for implementation of
the decision of 18 July 2000.
2. Additional investigation
(a) Extension of the applicant's detention for one month (until
4 May 2001)
23. On 4 April 2001 the case was remitted to the prosecutor of
the Vladimir Region for an additional investigation. On the same
day a deputy prosecutor of the Vladimir Region extended the
applicant's detention on remand by one month, until 4 May 2001.
(b) Extension of the applicant's detention for three months
(until 4 September 2001)
24. On 19 April 2001 the prosecutor of the Vladimir Region
applied to the Vladimir Regional Court for an order extending the
applicant's detention. The applicant lodged objections in which he
alleged, inter alia, that the prosecution had thus far failed to
perform any additional investigation.
25. On 28 April 2001 the Vladimir Regional Court established
that the bill of indictment had been translated into Tajik and
that on 18 April 2001 the defendants and their lawyers had begun
their examination of the case file. Noting the gravity of the
charges against the applicant, his Tajik nationality and absence
of a permanent residence in Vladimir, the Regional Court further
remanded him in custody until 4 September 2001.
26. On 4 and 17 May 2001 the applicant appealed against the
decision of the Vladimir Regional Court.
(c) Quashing of the decision to extend the applicant's
detention until 4 September 2001
27. On 8 August 2001 the Supreme Court established that one of
the applicant's co-defendants had not been provided with an
interpreter into Uzbek and that the applicant and other co-
defendants had had no access to the materials examined by the
Regional Court. It held as follows:
"The defects of the court hearing described above and the
curtailing of the defendants' statutory rights... are substantial
violations of the rules of criminal procedure, which could have
affected the judge's conclusions; the decision [of 28 April 2001]
must therefore be quashed and the materials of the case relating
to the extension of the defendants' pre-trial detention must be
referred for a new judicial examination. During the new
examination of the prosecutor's request, the above defects shall
be remedied... and the arguments by the defendants and their
counsel, including those concerning the lawfulness of their
detention, shall be reviewed... The preventive measure [imposed
on, in particular, the applicant] shall remain unchanged".
By an interim decision of the same date, the Supreme Court
refused the applicant leave to appear at the appeal hearing.
(d) Second examination of the request for an extension of the
applicant's detention until 4 September 2001
28. On 11 September and 30 November 2001 the Vladimir Regional
Court adjourned hearings in order to afford the defendants
additional time in which to read the case-file.
29. On 27 February 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld a
challenge by the applicant against the presiding judge.
30. On 11 and 13 March, 12 April, 17 and 18 June 2002 hearings
were adjourned because of the absence of several lawyers,
including the applicant's counsel.
31. On 15 August 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court again granted
the prosecutor's request (of 19 April 2001) for an extension of
the defendants' detention on remand until 4 September 2001. It
found that it was necessary for the applicant to remain in custody
because he was a national of Tajikistan, was not registered as
resident in Vladimir, and had been charged with a serious criminal
offence. The court also referred to certain "conclusions"
contained in the prosecutor's application to the effect that the
applicant might abscond or obstruct justice. The content of these
"conclusions" was not disclosed.
32. On 23 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against
the decision of the Vladimir Regional Court. He claimed that the
contested decision was "unlawful and unconstitutional" and
requested leave to appear in person at the appeal hearing.
33. On 23 January 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of
15 August 2002, finding as follows:
"The judge came to a well-justified conclusion that the
defendants... could not be [released pending trial]. The judge had
regard to the fact that these persons were charged with serious
and particularly serious criminal offences, he considered the
information on their character and all the circumstances to which
the prosecutor had referred in support of his application...
The fact that the above-mentioned decision on the prosecutor's
application was [only] made after the defendants had spent that
length of time in custody... is not a ground for quashing the
decision of 15 August 2002 because the first judicial decision on
this matter was quashed in accordance with the law and the
prosecutor's application of 19 April 2001 was remitted for a new
examination. The subsequent progress of the criminal case is,
under these circumstances, of no relevance to a decision on the
prosecutor's application."
By an interim decision of the same date, the Supreme Court
refused the applicant's request for leave to appear because the
defendants' arguments were clearly set out in their grounds of
appeal and their lawyers were present at the hearing while the
prosecutor was not.
E. Third remittal of the case for additional investigation
1. Preparation for the trial
34. Meanwhile, on 4 September 2001 the additional investigation
was completed and the case sent to the Vladimir Regional Court. On
or about that date the applicant asked the court to order his
release pending the trial.
35. On 9 January 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court fixed the
first hearing for 5 February 2002 and held that the applicant
should remain in custody pending trial:
"[The court] did not establish any grounds... to amend or
revoke the preventive measure imposed on the accused given the
gravity of the offence with which the defendants are charged.
Furthermore, the fact that the court decision extending the
detention on remand of several defendants in order to afford them
[time] to examine the case materials was quashed on appeal is of
no legal significance. [In its decision of 8 August 2001] the
Supreme Court did not revoke the preventive measure, the case was
referred to the [trial] court without delay and no other grounds
for amending the preventive measure were established."
36. On 11 February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against
the decision. He complained, in particular, that his detention was
unlawful because it had significantly exceeded the maximum
eighteen-month period permitted by law, that the conditions in
which he was detained were poor and that he had been ill-treated
by police officers, both at the time of his arrest and
subsequently. He alleged that his notice of appeal had never been
dispatched to the Supreme Court.
37. On 5 February 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 26
February because three defendants had failed to appear. On 15
February 2002 the applicant prepared an appeal against the
decision to adjourn the hearing; in the notice of appeal, he also
repeated the points he had raised in his appeal of 11 February. He
again stated that his notice of appeal had not been sent to the
Supreme Court.
2. Decision to remit the case for additional investigation
38. On 13 March 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court established
that the case was not ready for consideration on the merits
because of a series of procedural defects: in particular, several
defendants had not had sufficient time to study the case file, one
defendant had not been provided with interpretation facilities
into Uzbek, and the applicant had not been informed in good time
of the expert examinations. The court remitted the case for an
additional investigation and remanded the defendants in custody
"in the light of the gravity and dangerous nature of the
offences".
39. On 11 April 2002 the prosecution appealed against the
decision of 13 March and the applicant did likewise on 29 April.
The applicant submitted, in particular, that the domestic law did
not permit extensions of detention "during the investigation"
beyond the maximum period of eighteen months which had expired, in
his case, on 4 April 2001.
40. On 28 May 2002 the case-file was forwarded to the Supreme
Court for examination of the issue of detention on remand.
3. Quashing of the decision to remit the case
for additional investigation
41. On 8 August 2002 the Supreme Court refused, in an interim
decision, the applicant's request for leave to appear, holding
that his position had been clearly and exhaustively stated in the
grounds of appeal.
42. On 12 September 2002 it examined the appeals lodged by the
prosecutor, the applicant and his co-defendants and found that the
defence rights had not been impaired. On this ground it quashed
the decision of 13 March 2002 and instructed the Vladimir Regional
Court to proceed with the trial. It held that the applicant and
his co-defendants should remain in custody because "there were no
legal grounds to amend the preventive measure given the gravity
and dangerous nature of the offences".
43. On 7 October 2002 the case-file was returned to the
Vladimir Regional Court.
F. Further extensions of the applicant's detention
pending trial and his release from custody
44. On 18 November 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court extended
the applicant's detention on remand until 3 December 2002. It
found as follows:
"The case was referred to the Vladimir Regional Court on 2
September 2001; on 13 March 2002 it was decided to remit the case
for additional investigation. On 12 September 2002 the Supreme
Court quashed that decision on appeal by the prosecutor. Thus, the
defendants have remained in custody for 8 months and 16 days,
starting from the date of the case's referral and excluding the
period between [the end of the] examination on the merits and the
quashing of the decision [of 13 March 2002] on appeal.
Regard being had to the fact that the defendant is charged with
serious and particularly serious criminal offences, in order to
secure the examination of the case and the enforcement of the
conviction [sic], there are no grounds to [release the applicant].
Under these circumstances, pursuant to Article 255 з 3 of the
Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendant's detention on
remand is extended for an additional three months".
45. On 4 December 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court granted a
further extension of the applicant's detention for three months,
that is to say until 3 March 2003 [the decision mistakenly
indicates 2002]. The grounds invoked by the court were identical
to those set out in the decision of 18 November 2002.
46. On 22 and 26 November and 5 December 2002 the applicant's
lawyers lodged appeals against the decisions of 18 November and 4
December with the Supreme Court. They submitted, in particular,
that the six-month period of the applicant's detention which had
started from the moment the case was referred for trial, had
expired on 2 March 2002 but had been extended only two months and
sixteen days later, on 18 November. Therefore, the applicant's
detention from 13 March to 12 September 2002 had not been covered
by any detention order: the prosecution had not assumed
responsibility for the case, whilst the courts considered that the
case had been remitted for an additional investigation and held
the prosecution accountable for the applicant's detention.
47. On 3 March, 28 May, 28 August and 27 November 2003 and 27
February 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court authorised further
extensions of detention in respect of the applicant and 12 co-
defendants, on each occasion for a period of three months. The
reasons given in the decisions of 3 March, 28 May and 28 August
2003 were identical to those given in the decisions of 18 November
and 4 December 2002 (see above). The decisions of 27 November 2003
and 27 February 2004 referred to the gravity of the charges and
the existence of "sufficient reasons to believe that the
defendants would abscond".
The applicant submitted appeals against each of these
decisions.
48. Between May 2003 and 15 March 2004 the trial proceeded. On
19 April 2004 the parties began their final submissions.
49. On 28 May 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court, by an interim
decision, held that the applicant's detention on remand was not to
be extended because the prosecution had reduced the charges
against him. He appears to have been released from custody the
same day.
50. On 21 March 2005 the Supreme Court examined the applicant's
and/or his co-defendants' appeals against the decisions of 18
November and 4 December 2002, 3 March, 28 May, 28 August and 27
November 2003 and 27 February 2004 extending their detention on
remand.
The Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 18 November and 4
December 2002 and 3 March 2003 on the ground that they had been
given by an incomplete formation: a single judge instead of a
three-judge panel. As regards the applicant's situation, it
further held:
"Since the judge's decision has been quashed because of a
breach of the rules of criminal procedure, the court will not
examine the arguments in the appeals alleging that the extension
of the [applicant's] detention was unlawful on other grounds. The
matter will not be remitted for a new examination because [the
applicant] has been acquitted."
The Supreme Court upheld the other decisions, finding that the
Regional Court had correctly referred to the gravity of the
charges and the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that
the defendants would abscond during the trial.
G. Discontinuation of the criminal proceedings
51. On 18 June 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court, by an interim
decision, dismissed the charges of participation in an organised
criminal enterprise and running an opium den against the applicant
after they were withdrawn by the prosecution.
52. By another interim decision of the same date, the court
dismissed a charge against the applicant in respect of one
incident of drug possession because of a recent change in the
Russian criminal law that had decriminalised possession of
negligible amounts of drugs.
53. Finally, by a judgment of the same date, the court
acquitted the applicant of the remaining drug-trafficking charges
because his involvement in the commission of the offences could
not be proven. Some of his co-defendants were convicted and
sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
54. On 21 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation upheld, on appeal, the above judgment and decisions of
the Vladimir Regional Court.
H. Decisions of the Constitutional Court
55. On 10 December 2002 the Constitutional Court examined the
applicant's complaint concerning his exclusion from the
proceedings before the Supreme Court and confirmed that the
applicant should have had the right to appear in person and plead
his case before the court if a prosecutor was present.
56. On 15 July 2003 the Constitutional Court issued decision
(определение) No. 292-O on the applicant's complaint about the ex
post facto extension of his "detention during trial" by the
Regional Court's decision of 18 November 2002. It held as follows:
"Article 255 з 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Russian Federation provides that the [trial court] may... upon the
expiry of six months after the case was sent to it, extend the
defendant's detention for successive periods of up to three
months. It does not contain, however, any provisions permitting
the courts to take a decision extending the defendant's detention
on remand once the previously authorised time-limit has expired,
in which event the person is detained for a period without a
judicial decision. Nor do other rules of criminal procedure
provide for such a possibility. Moreover, Articles 10 з 2 and 109
з 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly require the court,
prosecutor, investigator... to release anyone who is unlawfully
held in custody beyond the time-limit established in the Code
immediately. Such is also the requirement of Article 5 зз 3 and 4
of the European Convention... which is an integral part of the
legal system of the Russian Federation, pursuant to Article 15 з 4
of the Russian Constitution..."
57. On 22 January 2004 the Constitutional Court delivered
decision No. 66-O on the applicant's complaint about the Supreme
Court's refusal to permit him to attend the appeal hearings on the
issue of detention. It held:
"Article 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulating the
presence of a defendant remanded in custody before the appeal
court... cannot be read as depriving the defendant held in
custody... of the right to express his opinion to the appeal
court, by way of his personal attendance at the hearing or by
other lawful means, on matters relating to the examination of his
complaint about a judicial decision affecting his constitutional
rights and freedoms..."
I. Conditions of the applicant's detention and
in which he was transported
1. The applicant's detention in facility No. OD-1/T-2
58. From 16 February 2000 to 28 May 2004 the applicant was held
in detention facility No. OD-1/T-2 of the Vladimir Region
(учреждение ОД-1/Т-2 УИН МЮ РФ по Владимирской области), known as
"Vladimirskiy Tsentral". He stayed in various cells in wings Nos.
3 and 4, built in 1870 and 1846, respectively.
(a) Number of inmates per cell
59. According to a certificate issued on 22 April 2004 by the
facility director, and which the Government have produced, the
applicant was kept in eight cells described as follows: cell No. 4-
14 (12.1 square metres, 6 bunks, average population 4 to 6
inmates), cell No. 4-13 (12.3 sq. m, 6 bunks, 5 to 7 inmates),
cell No. 4-9 (23.4 sq. m, 13 bunks, 13 to 20 inmates), cells Nos.
3-3, 3-53, 3-54, 3-51 and 3-52 (35 to 36 sq. m, 16 bunks, 12 to 18
inmates).
60. The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements or the
number of bunks. He disagreed, however, with the figure given by
the Government for the number of inmates. According to him,
between February and December 2000 he stayed in cell No. 4-9 that
housed 18 to 35 inmates and between December 2000 and May 2004 he
was kept in cells measuring approximately 36 sq. m, together with
20 to 40 other detainees. After the new Code of Criminal Procedure
came into effect on 1 July 2002, the number of inmates in his cell
dropped to between 15 and 25. Given the lack of beds, inmates
slept in eight-hour shifts. They waited for their turn sitting on
the concrete floor or on a stool if one was available.
In support of his statements the applicant produced written
depositions by three former cellmates, Mr Abdurakhmon Kayumov, Mr
Sergey Gunin and Mr Yan Kelerman. They stated, in particular, that
in 2003 - 2004 cell No. 3-52 had housed 20 to 30 inmates (Mr
Kayumov's deposition) or even 25 to 35 (Mr Gunin's deposition), as
had cells Nos. 3-51 and 3-53. They also testified that they and
the other detainees had slept in turns.
(b) Sanitary conditions and installations
61. The Government, relying on a certificate of 8 April 2004
from the facility director, submitted that the "sanitary and anti-
epidemic condition of the facility remained satisfactory,
including... in the cells where [the applicant] had been held".
Another certificate of 20 April 2004 showed that "the cells...
were equipped with [a lavatory pan] placed no more than 10 cm
above the floor and separated by a partition of 1.5 m in height
with additional curtains". Running tap water was available and
detainees were permitted to use immersion heaters.
62. The applicant conceded that there had been no outbreaks of
contagious diseases or epidemics. Apart from that, the sanitary
conditions were wholly unsatisfactory. Prisoners infected with
tuberculosis, hepatitis, scabies and the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) were occasionally held in his cell. The cells were
infested by lice, bed-bugs, flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rats
and mice, but the facility administration did not provide any
repellents or insecticides. Detainees were not given any
toiletries, such as soap, toothbrush, toothpaste or toilet paper,
apart from 100 grams of caustic soda once a week and two plastic
bottles of bleach (1.5 litres each) every two or three months.
Cells had no ventilation systems. In winter they were cold and in
summer it was hot, stuffy and excessively damp inside.
63. The applicant challenged the Government's description of
the toilet facilities as factually untrue. The cast-iron pan was
raised on a pedestal about 50 - 80 cm high and separated from the
living area from one side with a one-metre-high partition. The
person using the toilet was in full view of other inmates. No
curtains were provided; occasionally the inmates hung a sheet but
wardens tore it down and disciplined those responsible. What is
more, the lavatory pan had no seat or cover: inmates stuck an
empty plastic bottle in the hole in order to prevent smells from
spreading. The dining table was fixed to the floor just a few
|
