Communicated on 19 December 2013

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 36985/07 Resan Resulovich GOGITIDZE against Russia lodged on 14 June 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Resan Resulovich Gogitidze , is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Volgograd. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Isetskiy and Mr A. Gutov , lawyers practising in Volgograd.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A. Investigation

On 22 December 2004 a senior investigator with the Federal Security Service arrested the applicant on suspicion of fraud. The applicant, who was the managing director of a vegetable canning factory, was – in particular – suspected of having misappropriated State funds.

On 24 December 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd authorised the applicant ’ s detention pending investigation. In particular, the court noted:

“Regard being had to the ... arguments proffered by the investigator and the material submitted ... , the judge considers that the [investigator ’ s] request is well-founded and should be granted. [The applicant] is suspected of [having committed] a serious offence. Furthermore, according to the material submitted, there are grounds to believe that, if left at liberty, he might continue his criminal activities or abscond and leave Russia, both of which possibilities are confirmed by information obtained in the course of investigation. Moreover, being managing director of [the vegetable canning factory], [the applicant] might threaten witnesses and other parties to the proceedings who testify against him; he might destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.”

On 11 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the decision of 24 December 2004 on appeal.

On 17 February 2005 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 6 May 2005, dismissing his argument that he had a permanent place of residence and was the sole provider for his family. In particular, the court reasoned as follows:

“In considering the extension of the [applicant ’ s] detention, the court takes into account that the latter is charged with a serious offence. It is apparent from the materials submitted that, if left at liberty, [the applicant] might abscond. Furthermore, by virtue of his position as managing director of [the vegetable canning factory], [the applicant] might threaten the witnesses and other parties to the proceedings who testify against him.”

On 15 March 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 17 February 2005 on appeal.

On 3 May 2005 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 22 June 2005. The court noted as follows:

“It follows from the material submitted that [the applicant] was remanded in custody in view of the gravity of the charges against him and the existence of evidence suggesting that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation of the crime. When remanding [the applicant] in custody, the court took into consideration the [applicant ’ s] character and the fact that he has a child who is a minor.

The court does not discern any new, previously unknown, circumstances that would preclude the possibility of the [applicant] being held in detention. Nor are there any grounds for the [applicant ’ s] release.”

On 20 June 2005 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 6 October 2005. The court reiterated its reasoning of 3 May 2005.

On 15 September 2005 the District Court forwarded the case file to the Regional Court to determine the issue of its jurisdiction and ordered that the applicant remain in custody.

On 6 October 2005 the Regional Court forwarded the case file to the Mikhailovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region for further consideration. On 8 February 2006 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the relevant decision on appeal.

On 21 November 2005 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 6 January 2006. On 20 December 2005 the Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.

On 29 December 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 6 April 2006, noting as follows:

“It is apparent from the material in the case file that [the applicant] is charged with serious offences which entail a custodial sentence of up to ten years.

The court takes into account the [applicant ’ s] state of health and age. However, it considers that the circumstances justifying his remand in custody have not changed.”

On 14 February 2006 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 December 2005 on appeal. The court noted that the District Court had held the hearing in the absence of the applicant ’ s lawyers. It further ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending the fresh consideration of the issue. After considering the matter afresh, on 27 February 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court once again extended the applicant ’ s detention, until 6 April 2006, reiterating its earlier reasoning.

B. Trial

On 14 March 2006 the Mikhailovskiy District Court received the case ‑ file.

On 28 March 2006 the Mikhailovskiy District Court scheduled the trial for 11 April 2006. It also ordered that the applicant and two other defendants be detained pending trial. The court reasoned as follows:

“As regards the measure of restraint imposed on the defendants in the course of the preliminary investigation, [the applicant], Sh. and G. were remanded in custody, K. and Shel . were released on condition of their not leaving town and behaving properly.

The measure imposed earlier cannot be changed or lifted for the following reasons:

[The applicant], Sh., G., K. and Shel . are charged with a number of serious offences entailing a custodial sentence of up to ten years.

The court takes into consideration the [applicant ’ s] state of health, his age and the fact that he has a child who is a minor to support. The court also takes into account that Sh. has children who are minors to support.

However, the court considers that the circumstances justifying the remand in custody of [the applicant], Sh. and G. have not changed to date. They might abscond, continue criminal activities or interfere with administration of justice. In view of these circumstances, the preventive measure imposed on [the applicant], Sh. and G. cannot be changed.

Lastly, there are no grounds to change the preventive measure imposed on K. and Shel .”

On 23 May 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal.

On 14 September 2006 the Mikhailovskiy District Court extended the detention of the applicant and two other defendants until 14 December 2006. The court noted as follows:

“It is apparent from the material in the case file that [the applicant], Sh. and G. are charged with serious offences entailing a custodial sentence of up to ten years. The circumstances justifying the defendants ’ remand in custody and their detention pending investigation and trial have not changed.

The court takes into account the family situation of the defendants, their age, state of health and positive character references ... . The court has not received any information to the effect that the defendants were unfit for detention. They can receive any necessary medical treatment in medical establishments at their places of detention.

The court has not yet examined all the witnesses testifying for the prosecution. In the light of the gravity of the charges against the defendants, it is possible that they might put pressure on those witnesses ... .”

On 14 November 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 September 2006 on appeal.

On 1 December 2006 the Mikhailovskiy District Court extended the detention of the applicant and two other defendants until 14 March 2007.

On 6 March 2007 the Mikhailovskiy District Court extended the detention of the applicant and two other defendants until 14 June 2007. The court reiterated verbatim the reasoning of the previous detention orders.

On 29 May 2007 the Mikhailovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty on two counts of fraud and sentenced him to seven and a half years ’ imprisonment.

On 30 October 2007 the Regional Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was unreasonably long.

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?