Communicated on 23 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 1687/15
Denis Aleksandrovich SUGROBOV
against Russia
lodged on 29 December 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Denis Aleksandrovich Sugrobov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1976 and lived, before his arrest, in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Antonov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The applicant’s arrest and detention
On 7 May 2014 the applicant, a high-ranking officer of the Russian Ministry of Interior at the time of the events, was arrested on suspicion of several counts of abuse of public office, running a criminal organisation and bribery incitement.
On the following day the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant’s placement in custody, having referred to the gravity of offences imputed to him and risks of his absconding, obstructing justice, witness tampering and re-offending. The District Court relied on the prosecution argument about the applicant’s attempt to abscond after having been formally summoned by the investigator. Having taken notice of the applicant’s family status and his health condition, the District Court found no possibility to apply alternative measures of restraint to him.
On 15 May 2014 the applicant was formally charged. On 11 June 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order of 8 May 2014 on appeal.
The applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended by the District Court on 4 July 2014. The requests for bail against payment of RUB 103,661,551 (approximately EUR 2,200,000 at the time) or any other alternative restraint measure were dismissed. The District Court basically endorsed the reasoning of the first detention order of 8 May 2014. On 4 August 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order of 4 July 2014 on appeal.
On 11 August 2014 the District Court, by a collective decision extended pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and his two co-accused. That detention order became final on 19 September 2014 when the Moscow City Court upheld it on appeal.
B. Measures against the applicant’s lawyer
On 19 May 2014 the investigator in charge of criminal case against the applicant questioned Mr Antonov, who also acted as one of the applicant’s defence lawyers, about the circumstances in which Mr K., one of the applicant’s co-accused, for whom Mr Antonov also acted as counsel, received injuries, as well as about possible pressure exerted on witnesses by unknown individuals. Mr Antonov refused to sign the interrogation record.
On 20 May 2014 the investigator dismissed Mr Antonov from the applicant’s criminal case, referring to the questioning of 19 May 2014 and stating that in accordance with Article 72 § 1 (1) of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, a witness could not act as counsel in the same proceedings. Mr Antonov, the applicant and Mr K. appealed. On 11 June 2014 the District Court dismissed their complaints and upheld the investigator’s decision. On 18 August 2014 the Moscow City Court confirmed the findings on appeal.
Mr Antonov still acted as the applicant’s counsel in the appeal hearing on 11 June 2014 before the Moscow City Court. He was, however, excluded from the detention hearings on 4 July and 11 August 2014 and the appeal hearings on 4 August and 19 September 2014.
In June 2014 a criminal case was opened against Mr Antonov on the charge of public disclosure of information relating to the course of the investigation.
On 8 July 2014 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow authorised a search in Mr Antonov’s house. During the search, which was performed on 15 July 2014, a number of documents, in particular, files relating to the criminal case against the applicant were seized by the investigator.
On 9 December 2014 formal charges were brought against Mr Antonov and he was questioned. On the following date Mr Antonov, referring to the fact that the he was representing the applicant before the European Court of Human Rights, requested the administration of the IZ-77/2 remand prison and the investigator in charge of the criminal case against the applicant to allow him to meet the applicant, however no reply followed. It appears that Mr Antonov has not been allowed to see the applicant and finalise the preparation of the application form. As a result the form submitted to the Court was not signed by the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention was not based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons.
Relying on Article 34 of the Convention he further complained about the hindrance with the effective exercise of his right of individual petition.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s representative, Mr Antonov, denied access to him in the IZ-77/2 remand prison in Moscow and if so, on what grounds?
2. Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy