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

r />
13. On 9 July 2003 the applicant was arrested in Russia and held in custody, first at the Moscow-Paveletskiy temporary detention facility and then at remand prison No. 77/4 in Moscow.
14. On 14 October 2003 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the detention pending extradition of the applicant under Article 466 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the CCP") without providing a time-limit for his detention.
15. On 9 June 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 13 May 2004 to the Supreme Court (see paragraph 10 above). In his appeal, he also stated that his detention from 9 July to 29 August 2003 had been unlawful because he had been detained without a court order and that the overall length of his detention had been excessive.
16. In its decision of 29 July 2004 the Supreme Court (see paragraph 11 above) left without examination the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention.

II. Relevant domestic law

17. For a summary of domestic law provisions on detention on remand, see Nasrulloyev v. Russia (No. 656/06, §§ 48 - 56, 11 October 2007).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

18. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention with a view to extradition had been unlawful. The relevant parts of Article 5 § 1 read as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of... a person against whom action is being taken with a view to... extradition."

A. Submissions of the parties

19. The applicant argued that his detention had been unlawful because the authorities had not complied with the procedure prescribed by domestic and international legislation. He also stressed that the proceedings had not been conducted with the requisite diligence, which had led to their protraction and had contributed to the length of his detention.
20. The Government submitted that the applicant's detention had been duly authorised on 14 October 2003 by the Babushkinskiy District Court. They further noted that on 4 April 2006 the Constitutional Court of Russia had issued a decision on a complaint similar to that submitted by the applicant and therefore the provisions of domestic legislation concerning extradition had been sufficiently clear, foreseeable and precise. They also submitted that the domestic authorities had demonstrated requisite diligence in the applicant's case and that the length of his detention had not been excessive.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

21. The Court notes that the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 1 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

22. The Court has previously noted that, where deprivation of liberty is concerned, it is particularly important that the general principle of legal certainty be satisfied. The requirement of "quality of law" in relation to Article 5 § 1 implies that where a national law authorises a deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Baranowski v. Poland, No. 28358/95, §§ 50 - 52, ECHR 2000-III, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
23. In a number of its recent judgments, the Court has already found that the provisions of the Russian law governin

> 1 2 3 4