FIRST SECTION
Application no. 24021/07
Gennadiy Vladimirovcich SHEYDYAKOV
against Russia
lodged on 13 April 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Gennadiy Vladimirovcich Sheydyakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and prior to his arrest lived in the Moscow region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A.  Pre-trial proceedings
At the material time the applicant was a police officer.
On 15 July 2003 criminal proceedings were initiated against him and fellow police officers on suspicion of abuse of authority.
On 7 August 2003 the applicant was charged with abuse of authority, malfeasance in office and extortion.
On 8 August 2003 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case imposed an undertaking on him not to leave town. He found, in particular, that the applicant had no criminal record, was permanently living in the Moscow region, was a serving police officer and was married with two dependent children. The investigator had also taken into account that since the institution of the criminal proceedings against him the applicant had always come to every meeting with the investigating authorities and had not interfered with the proceedings.
B.  First examination of the case
On 3 October 2003 the prosecuting authorities referred the case against the applicant and his three co-accused to the Presnenskiy District Court in Moscow (“the District Court”) for trial.
On 9 November 2003 the District Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and set the preliminary hearing of the case for 19 November 2003. The court also held that the applicant, as well as his co-accused, should remain subject to a written undertaking.
On 21 November 2003, after having held a preliminary hearing, the District Court set the case down for trial on 10 December 2003 and held that the applicant and his co-accused should remain subject to a written undertaking.
On 24 May 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant was arrested in the courtroom.
C.  Quashing of the applicant’s conviction on appeal and the second examination of his case
On 7 December 2004 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the judgment of 24 May 2004 on appeal by the prosecution and remitted the case to the District Court for re-examination. By the same decision the City Court held that the applicant should remain in detention. It did not specify any reasons for the applicant’s detention or fix any time-limits on that detention.
On 5 April 2005 the District Court, after fresh examination, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.
On 31 October 2005 the City Court upheld that judgment.
D.  Quashing of the appeal decision by way of supervisory review
On 8 December 2005 the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 5 April 2005 and of the decision of 31 October 2005.
On 26 January 2006 the Presidium of the City Court quashed the appeal decision of 31 October 2005 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case to the City Court for re-examination on appeal.
E.  Quashing of the applicant’s conviction on appeal and further decisions to keep the applicant in detention
On 26 July 2006 the City Court, after fresh examination of the case on appeal, quashed the judgment of 5 April 2005 and remitted the case to the District Court for re-examination. By the same decision the City Court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in detention. However, the City Court did not specify any reasons for the applicant’s detention or set any time-limits on that detention.
On 16 August 2006 the case arrived at the District Court.
On 21 August 2006 the District Court set the preliminary examination of the case for 31 August 2006. By the same decision the District Court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should stay in detention. However, it did not specify any reasons for its decision or set any time-limits on the accused’s detention. Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at the hearing.
F.  Referral of the case for additional investigation and decision to keep the applicant in detention
On 31 August 2006, after having held a preliminary hearing, the District Court referred the case to the prosecuting authorities for additional investigation. By the same decision the District Court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in detention, having regard to the charges against them and the risk of them putting pressure on witnesses and victims and interfering with the proceedings. However, the District Court did not set any time-limit on the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention.
On 30 October 2006 the City Court upheld the decision of 31 August 2006.
G.  Additional investigation and further extensions of the applicant’s detention
On 17 November 2006 the prosecuting authorities reopened the investigation of the case.
On 21 December 2006 the applicant was presented with a final version of the indictment. He was charged with abuse of authority, malfeasance in office and also with extortion committed together with his co-accused.
On 9 January 2007 the applicant’s counsel submitted an application for the applicant’s release to the District Court.
On 16 January 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 February 2007, having regard to the charges against the applicant and the risk of him influencing the victims and witnesses and interfering with the proceedings.
On 18 January 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release made on 9 January 2007.
On 21 February 2007 the City Court quashed the detention order of 16 January 2007 on the basis of numerous procedural shortcomings and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh examination. By the same decision the City Court held that the applicant should remain in detention, without specifying the reasons for the applicant’s detention or setting any time-limits on it.
On 27 February 2007 the District Court, after fresh examination, extended the applicant’s detention until 28 February 2007 on the same grounds as before.
By another decision adopted on 27 February 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2007 on the same grounds as before.
By decisions of 11 April 2007 the City Court upheld the detention orders of 27 February 2007.
On 28 April 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2007 on the same grounds as before.
On 8 May 2007 the prosecuting authorities referred the case to the District Court for trial.
H.  Third examination of the case
On 8 May 2007 the District Court set the preliminary hearing of the case for 16 May 2007. By the same decision the District Court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in detention. The City Court did not specify any reasons for the applicant’s detention or set any time-limits on it. Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at the hearing.
On 16 May 2007 the District Court adjourned the case until 30 May 2007. By the same decision the District Court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in detention. It did not cite any reasons for the extension of the applicant’s detention or set any time-limits on it.
On 13 June 2007 the District Court, after having held the preliminary hearing, set the examination of the case for 20 June 2007. By the same decision the District Court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in detention. It did not specify any reasons for the applicant’s detention or fix any time-limits on it.
On 25 June, 23 and 30 July and 1 August 2007 the City Court upheld the detention orders of 28 April, 16 and 8 May and 13 June 2007 respectively.
On 21 and 24 August and 12 September 2007 the District Court dismissed applications for release made by the applicant.
On 11 October 2007 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
On 15 October 2007 the City Court upheld the decision of 21 August 2007.
On 16 October 2007 the City Court upheld the decisions of 24 August and 12 September 2007.
On 10 December 2007 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was unlawful.

2.  He complains under Article 5 § 3 that his pre-trial detention was not based on sufficient reasons and was excessively lengthy.

3.  The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 that on 21 August 2006 and 8 May 2007 his detention was extended in his and his lawyer’s absence, and that on 28 April 2007 his detention was extended in the absence of one of his lawyers.

4.  The applicant complains under Article 6 that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he complains that: after the referral of the case for additional investigation, the investigating authorities brought additional charges against him; the trial court was not impartial because it did not take his alibi into account, wrongly assessed the evidence, based his conviction on inadmissible evidence and rejected his request to question certain prosecution witnesses at trial; the trial court was not established in accordance with law, as the case should have been examined by a different court.

5.  The applicant complains under Article 6 that the criminal proceedings against him were excessively lengthy.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Was the procedure by which the applicant’s detention was ordered, extended and reviewed in conformity with Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant and his counsel afforded an opportunity to be present at the court hearings at which his detention was ordered, extended and reviewed?

2.  Was the applicant’s detention in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention “lawful” and imposed and extended “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” as required by Article 5 § 1? Did the decisions ordering and extending the applicant’s detention refer to any reasons which would justify his continuous detention and did they set any time-limits on his detention? If not, was the applicant’s detention compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion? The Government are required to comment on each and every period of the applicant’s detention.

3.  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 continuing detention of the applicant and were the proceedings conducted with “special diligence”?

The Government are requested to provide copies of the orders extending the applicant’s detention that are missing from the file, his appeals against those orders and decisions of the appeal court.