Communicated on 19 December 2013

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 51329/08 Mikhail Olegovich VASILYEV against Russia lodged on 16 September 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mikhail Olegovich Vasilyev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Tver .

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

A. The applicant ’ s arrest and detention pending investigation

On 13 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of car theft and traffic of stolen cars.

On 14 March 2006 he was charged with two episodes of theft.

On 15 March 2006 Moscovskiy District Court, Tver , (“the District Court”) ordered to place the applicant in detention. In particular, the District Court held that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and had been suspected of having committed them during his release on probation following his conviction of another offence in 2004. Having regard to the above and also taking into account the applicant ’ s personality, the District Court considered that if released the applicant might reoffend, interfere with the proceedings or abscond.

On 21 April 2006 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 20 June 2006 having regard to the gravity of charges against him and his criminal record.

On 15 June 2006 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 13 September 2006 having found that the grounds on which he had been initially placed in detention had not changed.

On 30 August 2006 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 20 December 2006 on the same grounds as in its decision of 15 March 2006. In addition, the District Court held that the criminal case had been particularly complex since it involved several co-defendants charged with numerous criminal offences committed as members of organised criminal group.

On 10 October 2006 the charges against the applicant were amended. This time he was charged with several episodes of theft and traffic of stolen cars. On an unspecified date the prosecutor dropped the theft charges.

On 14 December 2006 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 13 March 2007, thus bringing its total duration to twelve months. The District Court found, in particular, that the grounds, on which the applicant had been initially placed in detention, had not changed.

On 19 February 2007 the Tver Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) extended the applicant ’ s detention until 20 March 2007 referring to the gravity of charges against the applicant. The Regional Court also considered that if released the applicant might abscond, reoffend and interfere with the proceedings.

On 6 July and 5 October 2006 and on 15 February 2007 the Regional Court upheld the detention orders of 15 June, 30 August and 14 December 2006 respectively.

On 19 April 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order of 19 February 2007.

B. The applicant ’ s detention pending trial and his conviction

On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant and his co-defendants was referred to the District Court for trial.

On 13 March 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for release.

On 20 November 2007 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s and his co-defendants ’ detention until 22 February 2008 having found that the grounds on which they had been initially placed in detention had not changed.

On 21 February 2008 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s and his co-defendants ’ detention until 22 May 2008 on the same grounds as before.

On 26 April 2007, 7 February and 25 March 2008 the Regional Court upheld the detention orders of 13 March and 20 November 2007 and of 21 February 2008 respectively.

On 5 May 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty of traffic of stolen cars and sentenced him to six years ’ imprisonment and a fine. During pre-trial and trial proceedings the applicant was assisted by state-appointed counsel.

On 9 September 2008 the Regional Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction. The applicant was not provided with legal assistance for the appeal hearing of his criminal case.

COMPLAINT S

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was unreasonably long and under Article 6 that he was not provided with legal assistance for the appeal hearing of his criminal case on 9 September 2008 .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities rely on “relevant and sufficient reasons” for the applicant ’ s detention and were the proceedings conducted with “special diligence”?

The Government are requested to provide a list of all detention orders issued in the applicant ’ s respect with indication of the dates on which those decisions were issued, the periods of detention which they covered and the dates of relevant appeal decisions (if any). The Government are also requested to provide copies of all missing detention orders and decisions of the appeal court.

2 . Did the interests of justice require that the applicant be provided with free legal representation at the appeal hearing before the Tver Regional Court on 9 September 2008 ( see Maxwell v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1994, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 300-C and Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, §§ 60-64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III)?

3. If so, was the fact that the applicant was not provided with legal aid counsel at the appeal hearing before the Tver Regional Court on 9 September 2008 compatible with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?