FIRST SECTION

Application no. 17614/08 Ivan Nikolayevich NAZAROV against Russia lodged on 18 February 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ivan Nikolayevich Nazarov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1976 and is detained in Rostov- na-Donu .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. The applicant ’ s arrest and detention pending investigation

On 22 October 2007 the applicant, a police officer at the time, was arrested on suspicion of drug sales.

On 24 October 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov - na-Donu authorised the applicant ’ s remand in custody pending investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows:

“ ... [the applicant] is suspected of having committed a grievous criminal offence in connection with illegal drug sales. He is a police officer. If at liberty, he might abscond, interfere with administration of justice, put pressure on witnesses and other defendants, including the minors among them, in order to evade criminal liability by use of his professional skills.”

On 7 November 2007 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the decision of 24 October 2007 on appeal. The applicant did not attend the hearing. His lawyer was present and made submissions to the court.

On 20 December 2007 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 8 February 2008. The court stated as follows:

“There are no reasons to change or lift the [applicant ’ s] remand in custody. He is charged with a grievous criminal offence in connection with illegal drug sales. He is a police officer and is suspected of having committed similar offences which are being investigated. If at liberty, he might abscond or interfere with administration of justice. Furthermore, the circumstances underlying the [applicant ’ s] remand in custody did not cease to exist.”

On 4 January 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 29 December 2007. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were notified of the time and date of the appeal hearing and did not attend it. The prosecutor was present and made submissions to the court.

On 6 February 2008 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 8 June 2008 noting as follows:

“There are no reasons to change or lift the [applicant ’ s] remand in custody. He is charged with a grievous criminal offence in connection with illegal drug sales committed by an organised group. [The applicant] has served on the police force for a long time and, accordingly, has skills and knowledge in investigative activities. Regard being had to the submitted materials and, in particular, to the printout of telephone communications ... , [the court] considers that there are sufficient grounds to believe that, if at liberty, [the applicant] might abscond, put pressure on witnesses and the defendants who are not held in custody or interfere with identification of other perpetrators.”

On 22 February 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 6 February 2008 on appeal. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were notified of the time and date of the appeal hearing and did not attend it. The prosecutor was present and made submissions to the court.

On 4 June 2008 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 8 August 2008 noting as follows:

“There are no reasons to change or lift the [applicant ’ s] remand in custody. He is charged with a number of extremely grievous criminal offences entailing a lengthy custodial sentence in connection with illegal drug sales committed by an organised group. The investigators consider that he was playing an active role being one of the organisers of [the group]. [The court] has sufficient grounds to believe that, if at liberty, ... [the applicant] might abscond, put pressure on witnesses and the defendants who are not held in custody or otherwise interfere with administration of justice.”

On 19 June 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 4 June 2008 on appeal. The applicant did not attend the hearing. His lawyer was present and made submissions to the court.

2. The applicant ’ s detention pending trial

On 29 July 2008 the District Court fixed the preliminary trial hearing for 6 August 2008. It also noted that the detention imposed as measure of restraint on the applicant and six other defendants “should remain unchanged”.

On 6 August 2008 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and six other defendants until 8 October 2008. The court stated as follows:

“[The defendants] are charged with extremely grievous criminal offences committed by an organised criminal group and involving illegal drug sales. Currently ... the circumstances underlying their remand in custody have not ceased to exist. Accordingly, [the court] considers that [the defendants] might abscond.”

On 4 September 2008 the Regional Court considered the applicant ’ s appeal against the decision of 6 August 2008 and dismissed it. The applicant did not attend the hearing. His lawyer was present and made submissions to the court.

On 1 October 2008 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and six other defendants until 8 October 2008. The court reiterated verbatim its earlier reasoning contained in the decision of 6 August 2008.

On 16 October 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 October 2008 on appeal. The court considered it possible to review the applicant ’ s appeal in his absence. It appears that the applicant ’ s lawyer was not present, while the prosecutor attended the hearing and made submissions to the court.

On 26 November 2008 the District Court extended the detention in respect of seven defendants, including the applicant, until 8 February 2009. The court ’ s reasoning duplicated the one contained in the previous court orders.

On 11 December 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 26 November 2008 on appeal. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were present at the hearing.

On 17 December 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of illegal drug dealings and sentenced him to fourteen years ’ imprisonment.

3. The quashing of the verdict and the applicant ’ s ensuing detention pending a new trial

On 10 June 2009 the Regional Court quashed the verdict of 17 December 2008 on appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. The court ordered that all the defendants, including the applicant, remain in custody.

On 15 July 2009 the District Court fixed the preliminary hearing of the case for 21 July 2009 and ordered that nine defendants, including the applicant, remain in custody until 10 October 2009. The court reasoned that they were charged with grievous criminal offences and might abscond, if released.

On 18 November 2009, 29 January and 29 April 2010 the District Court adjourned the hearing of the case. It further extended the detention of nine defendants, including the applicant, until 10 February, 10 May and 10 August 2010 respectively. The court reasoned that they were charged with grievous criminal offences and might abscond, if released.

On 23 September 2009 the District Court extended the detention of nine defendants, including the applicant, until 10 December 2009. [1]

On 15 December 2009, 9 February and 15 June 2010 the Regional Court upheld on appeal the decisions of 18 November 2009, 29 January and 29 April 2010 respectively. The applicant made submissions to the court through a video link.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

In the letter of 18 February 2008, the applicant informs the Court of his intent to lodge the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

In the application form of 23 June 2008, the applicant complains under Articles 5 § 1 (c) and 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was remanded in custody and detained pending investigation and trial only in view of the gravity of the charges against him. He also complains that neither he nor his lawyer were informed of the time and date of the appeal hearing concerning the extensions of his pre-trial detention on 20 December 2007 and 6 February 2008. He further complains Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention about numerous alleged failures of the investigative authorities to comply with domestic rules of criminal procedure.

In the application form of 1 December 2008, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about violations of the rules of criminal procedure committed by law-enforcement officers in the course of the criminal investigation against him and unfairness of the proceedings concerning consideration of his relevant complaints.

In the application form of 18 June 2009, the applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-61/1 in Rostov- na-Donu ; under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention about further extensions of his pre-trial detention. He complains under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that his presence at the appeal hearing on 4 September, 16 October and 11 December 2008 was not ensured. He complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the trial judge dismissed a great number of his motions and requests.

In the application form of 20 November 2009, the applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic courts considered his complaint about law enforcement officers in this absence and that the relevant proceedings were unfair.

In the application form received by the Court on 13 September 2010, the applicant complains under Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of his pre-trial detention and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention been based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and has it been compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (cf. Olstowski v. Poland , no. 34052/96, § 78, 15 November 2001; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria , no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001)?

2. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular was the applicant and/or his lawyer afforded an opportunity to be present at the appeal hearings of 4 January and 22 February 2008 (cf. Butusov v. Russia , no. 7923/04 , §§ 22-28 , 22 December 2009) ?

[1] The applicant did not provide a copy of the relevant court order.