Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.07.2010 <Дело Каримов (Karimov) против России» [англ.]

this appeal was examined by the Mari-Al Supreme Court on 26 March 2009, that is, thirteen days after its receipt by the court.
125. The Court further observes that throughout the proceedings the applicant remained in detention and that the Government did not argue that the applicant or his counsel had in some way contributed to the length of the appeal proceedings. It therefore follows that the entire length of the appeal proceedings is attributable to the domestic authorities.
126. The Government did not provide any justification for the delays in the examination of the applicant's appeals. In that respect the Court reiterates that where an individual's personal liberty is at stake, the Court has set up very strict standards concerning the State's compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Kadem v. Malta, No. 55263/00, §§ 44 - 45, 9 January 2003, where the Court considered a delay of seventeen days in deciding on the lawfulness of the applicant's detention excessive, and Butusov v. Russia, No. 7923/04, § 35, 22 December 2009, where the Court considered that a delay of twenty days in deciding on the application for release was excessive).
127. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the delays in question, ranging from thirteen to twenty-five days, cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4.
128. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

V. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

129. The applicant alleged that he had had no effective remedy in respect of the above violations. He referred to Article 13, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

A. The parties' submissions

130. The Government contended that the applicant had had access to the domestic courts in respect of his complaints concerning the risk of ill-treatment. They referred to the case of Kurbanov v. Russia (No. 19293/08), in which the order for the applicant's extradition to Uzbekistan was overruled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28 May 2008. They contended that such a remedy was effective and that the fact that the applicant's appeals had not produced the desired outcome did not demonstrate its ineffectiveness.
131. The applicant reiterated his complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

132. The Court notes that the applicant's complaint under Article 13 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

133. The Court notes that the scope of a State's obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention. Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamad

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21 ... 22