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

t of 13 June 2001 until February 2002.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

47. As for the Government's non-exhaustion plea, the Court does not agree with the Government that the judgment of 10 September 2001 on the merits of the charges against the applicant should be regarded as the "final decision" in the context of the bail proceedings (the examination of his application for release). The purpose of that judgment was to determine the applicant's guilt, not to review the lawfulness of his detention pending trial or the speediness of the examination of the applications for release. Therefore, the fact that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment on the merits is irrelevant and the Government's objection should therefore be dismissed.
48. The Court notes that the complaint about the length of the examination of the application for release is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

49. The Court notes that the applicant's contention that the first application for release was made on 22 March 2001 is not supported by any documentary evidence. On that date the defence lawyer made an application to the Vidnovo town prosecutor seeking the applicant's release. The Court observes that Article 5 § 4 deals with judicial proceedings; it does not guarantee access to non-judicial forms of review of the lawfulness of detention. A prior complaint to the prosecutor under Russian law was not a pre-requisite for the judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention: those remedies could have been pursued in parallel. In such a situation Article 5 § 4 starts to apply from the time when the applicant has recourse to judicial remedies - in the present case, that starting point was 17 April 2001, when the applicant lodged his application for release with the Kashira Town Court.
50. The application for release was finally rejected by the Moscow Regional Court on 13 June 2001. Therefore, it took the domestic authorities fifty-four days to examine the application for release. Furthermore, the Court takes into account the fact that the applicant was not informed about the decision taken on his application until February 2002 (see, mutatis mutandis, Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, No. 42046/06, § 38, 25 June 2009, with further references).
51. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 provides that "the lawfulness of the detention shall be decided speedily" (emphasis added). There are two aspects to this "speediness" requirement: firstly, an opportunity for legal review must be provided soon after the person is taken into detention and, if necessary, at reasonable intervals thereafter (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, September 1992, § 75, Series A No. 244). Secondly, the review proceedings must be conducted with due expedition (see Lebedev v. Russia, No. 4493/04, § 78, 25 October 2007). The applicant's complaint in the present case concerns this second aspect of the "speediness" requirement.
52. The question whether a person's right to a "speedy review" of his applications for release has been respected will be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case; in complex cases the examination of an application for release may take more time than in simple ones. In Baranowski v. Poland (No. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III), it took the domestic courts five months to examine an application for release. In that case the Government showed that the domestic court had commenced the examination of the first application for release as early as the day after it had been submitted and that, subsequently, it had on five occasions adjourned the examination of the relevant applications because evidence had to be

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9