Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.07.2010 <Дело Абдулажон Исаков (Abdulazhon Isakov) против России» [англ.]

d rejected his asylum request as it had been motivated by "...fear of lawful prosecution for a committed crime".
34. On 5 October 2009 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Russia FMS.
35. On 8 December 2009 the Russia FMS dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the decision of the Tyumen FMS.
36. On 21 January 2010 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Russia FMS to the Basmanniy district court of Moscow. The proceedings are still pending.
37. At the beginning of March 2010 the applicant applied to the Tyumen FMS with a request for temporary asylum.
38. On 17 March 2010 the Tyumen FMS granted the applicant temporary asylum in Russia for one year, stating, inter alia, that the measure had been applied in view of the examination of the applicant's case by the Court.

5. Proceedings concerning to the applicant's
requests for release

(a) The applicant's complaints to the administration of FBU/IZ-72/1
39. On 23 June 2008 the applicant complained about his detention to the head of the detention centre and requested to be released. He stated that his detention was unlawful as it had been neither authorised nor extended by court orders.
40. On 23 or 24 June 2008 the head of the detention centre refused to release the applicant and informed him that under Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code his detention pending extradition "would not exceed 18 months".
(b) The applicant's complaints to domestic courts
41. On 14 March 2008 the applicant complained to the Kalininskiy district court of Tyumen that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and requested to be released.
42. On 27 March 2008 the Tsentralniy district court of Tyumen decided to detain the applicant in view of his extradition to Uzbekistan. In its decision the court referred to Article 466 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code ("the Criminal Procedure Code"). The decision did not provide time-limits for the detention.
43. On 1 April 2008 the Kalininskiy district court rejected the complaint, stating that the decision to detain the applicant did not contravene the regulations concerning detention on remand (Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code) and that it had already been authorised on 27 March 2008 by the Tsentralniy district court. The applicant appealed against this decision, stating, inter alia, that between 6 and to 27 March 2008 he had been detained without a court order.
44. On 6 May 2008 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 15 April 2008) the Tyumen regional court dismissed his appeal. The court did not examine the issue of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention between 6 and 27 March 2008; it rejected the appeal for the same reasons as the ones stated in the decision of 1 April 2008.
45. On 28 August 2008 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Kalininskiy district court challenging the lawfulness of his detention pending extradition. He pointed out that it had been more than five months since his arrest, but his detention had not been extended by domestic courts, in violation of Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant further stated that his complaint to the head of the detention centre of 23 June 2008 had been rejected without a proper legal basis and requested the court to overrule the decision of the head of the detention centre.
46. On 4 September 2008 the Kalininskiy district court rejected the applicant's complaint, stating that the applicant should have appealed against the decision of 23 June 2008 through civil proceedings. On the same date the applicant appealed against the court's decision to the Tyumen regional court.
47. On 30 September 2008 the Tyumen regional court rejected the applicant's appeal and uph

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 18 19 20