В продовження вчорашньої теми – вчора ЄСПЛ опублікав рішення у | Свята [кримінальна] Юстиція

В продовження вчорашньої теми – вчора ЄСПЛ опублікав рішення у справі "ISTOMINA v. UKRAINE" (Application no. 23312/15) якраз стосовно застави. Але класичної проблеми з її непомірним розміром. Суд встановив порушення статті 5 § 3 Конвенції, оскільки національний суд не зміг обґрунтувати розмір застави.

А якщо конкретно, то встановив заставу у розмірі 12,250,479 гривень, що в 125 разів перевищує розмір застави для ухилення від сплати податків, фіктивного підприємництва та підробки документів, в яких підозрювалась особа. Зважаючи на майновий стан сторона захисту неодноразово клопотала про зменшення розміру застави до 24 тис. грн, але їх клопотання не були задоволені.

Згодом тримання під вартою замінили на цілодобовий домашній арешт, а під час третього продовження на нічний домашній арешт. Саме стосовно перших двох місяців, тобто тримання під вартою і було встановлено порушення (розмір альтернативної до тримання під вартою застави був непомірний).

Деталі:
5. In February and March 2015 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion, involvement in a sham business and forgery of documents. According to the investigator, the applicant created and managed a number of sham companies with the aim of tax evasion. As the head of the group of sham companies, the applicant forged the financial documents and instructed the accountant officers of the above companies to prepare necessary reporting documentation. The investigator considered that the applicant had been an organiser of those offences, which had caused damage amounting to 12,250,479 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). In his submissions the investigator requested that the court set bail in that amount in respect of the applicant who was at liberty at that time.

6. On 21 March 2015 the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) decided to set bail for the applicant as a preventive measure. It also found that there existed risks that the applicant might evade the investigation and trial, hinder the establishment of the truth, influence witnesses or continue engaging in criminal activity. The District Court further considered that since the applicant was accused of a serious offence, the maximum amount of bail that could be set for that type of offence under domestic law (see paragraph 20 below) could not ensure the applicant’s compliance with procedural obligations. Having regard to the gravity of the charges and the amount of damage allegedly caused in the criminal proceedings, the court set bail at UAH 12,249,426 (about EUR 495,000) which was 125 times higher than the amount of bail that could be set for the type of offence the applicant was accused of.
...
8. The applicant appealed, arguing that the amount of bail had been excessive. She asked to have the bail reduced to UAH 24,360, which would correspond to the amount of bail permitted by domestic law in respect of a serious offence. On 10 April 2015 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision.
...
12. On 15 May 2015 the District Court rejected as unfounded a further request from the applicant to change the preventive measure from pre-trial detention to house arrest.
16. On 29 July 2015 the Court of Appeal found that the extension of the applicant’s detention had not been justified. It therefore quashed the decision of 17 July 2015 and placed the applicant under house arrest, ordering her to stay in her home from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. every day.
...