European Court of Human Rights

15 October 2008

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 44511/04
by Viktor Anatolyevich LOGVINENKO
against Russia
lodged on 22 November 2004

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Viktor Anatolyevich Logvinenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1984 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Ivanovo Region.

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

A.  The circumstances of the case

1.  The applicant’s arrest and the first set of proceedings

On 2 January 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. He remained in custody pending trial.

On 22 April 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo concluded the trial of six defendants. The District Court found the applicant guilty of trespassing and manslaughter and sentenced him to nine years and four months’ imprisonment.

On 25 May 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant and F., one of his co-defendants, sought supervisory review of the judgments.

On 23 May 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted their request for supervisory review.

On 22 June 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 22 April and 25 May 2004 in respect of the applicant and F. by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter to the lower courts for fresh consideration. It further extended the defendants’ detention pending trial until 22 September 2005.

2.  The second set of proceedings and the applicant’s detention pending trial

On 12 July 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo received the case file.

On 28 July 2005 the District Court scheduled the hearing of the case for 11 August 2005 and dismissed a request by the defendants for release, referring to the gravity of the charges.

On 11 August 2005 the District Court stayed the proceedings owing to F.’s counsel’s failure to appear.

On 25 August 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the decision of 28 July 2005 on appeal.

On 8 September 2005 the Regional Court found the decision of 11 August 2005 unlawful and quashed it on appeal.

On 22 September 2005 the applicant’s representative complained to the local prosecutor’s office that the applicant was being held in custody in the absence of any court order. In response to the complaint, the regional correctional department informed her that the applicant could be detained pending trial until 12 January 2006 by virtue of the rules of criminal procedure, which allowed a court to keep a defendant in custody pending trial for up to six months from the date on which the trial court received the file in the defendant’s case.

On 1 December 2005 the District Court issued an order authorising the defendants’ pre-trial detention until 12 April 2006. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against them.

On 12 January 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 December 2005 on appeal. The court dismissed, inter alia, the applicant’s complaint that his detention after 23 September 2005 had been unlawful.

On 2 March 2006 the District Court further extended the defendants’ pre-trial detention until 12 July 2006. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the defendants.

On 25 April 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 March 2006 on appeal.

On 7 June 2006 the District Court extended the defendants’ pre-trial detention until 12 October 2006. The court reiterated verbatim the reasoning of the previous detention orders. It appears that the applicant did not appeal.

On 21 August 2006 the District Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.

On 12 October 2006 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 255 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the trial court may authorise a defendant’s detention pending trial for up to six months from the date on which it receives the file in the defendant’s case.

According to the interpretation provided by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, that Article does not allow the court to keep the defendant in custody in the absence of a relevant court order
(Ruling No. 4-P of 22 March 2005).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his conviction of 22 April 2004 as upheld on 25 May 2004 was based on inadmissible evidence.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that in January 2002 some newspapers and TV channels broadcasted information about him.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that he did not have sufficient time to prepare his defence in the course of the proceedings which ended with the judgment of 25 May 2004.

Without referring to any provision of the Convention, the applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings and of his pre-trial detention.

Without referring to any provision of the Convention, the applicant complains that his pre-trial detention after 23 September 2005 was unlawful.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES