Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Медведев (Medvedev) против России» [англ.]

ited above, § 61).
39. In the present case the applicant did not make use of the criminal-law complaint provided for by Article 113 of the CCrP. Instead, he preferred to raise the ill-treatment issue before the trial court which had determined the criminal charge against him and to bring a civil-law complaint under the Judicial Review Act (see "Relevant Domestic Law", above). It remains to be seen whether he was thereby dispensed from pursuing an ordinary judicial appeal against the prosecutor's decision not to investigate the ill-treatment complaints.
40. As to the first legal avenue, even assuming that the trial court was capable of addressing the issues raised by the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention (see Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, No. 5742/02, §§ 25 et seq., 2 October 2008), the Court notes that the applicant failed to lodge an appeal against the judgment of 10 September 2001 (see in this respect the partial inadmissibility decision of 4 May 2006 in the present case).
41. As to the civil-law complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court observes that on 29 March 2002 the Vidnovo Town Court indicated to the applicant that it was not an appropriate remedy. The position of the Vidnovo Town Court was based on the Judicial Review Act of 27 April 1993 and the Ruling of the Supreme Court of 21 December 1993 which provided that decisions of a prosecutor should be challenged by way of a criminal-law complaint. The Town Court advised the applicant of the proper legal avenue. The Court notes that the applicant was not at that moment of time detained and was legally represented. In such circumstances it is unclear why he preferred not to lodge a criminal-law complaint under Article 113 of the old CCrP, but to insist on examination of his civil-law complaint.
42. In sum, having regard to the fact that the applicant neither brought a criminal-law complaint under Article 113 of the old CCrP, nor challenged the findings of the trial court in his case before the Court of Appeal, the Court concludes that the applicant did not use the appropriate remedies and the Government's objection should therefore be upheld.
43. It follows that the complaint under Article 3 about the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the police officers must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention

44. Under Article 5 § 4 the applicant complained that it had taken the Kashira Town Court and the Moscow Regional Court too long to hear his appeal against the detention order. Article 5 § 4, referred to by the applicant, reads as follows:
"4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. ..."

A. The parties' submissions

45. The Government put forward two objections. Firstly, they claimed that the complaint about the length of the bail proceedings should be dismissed for non-exhaustion. In their opinion, the applicant should have appealed against the judgment on the merits of the case against him (judgment of the Vidnovo Town Court of 10 September 2001). Secondly, they claimed that the length of the proceedings in which the application for release had been examined was not excessive.
46. The applicant maintained his original complaints. He claimed that he had lodged his application for release on 22 March 2001 - first before the Vidnovo town prosecutor and then before the Kashira Town Court of Moscow, and then the Moscow Regional Court. His applications to the court were examined with a substantial delay. He maintained that he had not received a copy of the ruling of the Moscow Regional Cour

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9