oland, No. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). The question whether the right to a speedy decision has been respected must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, No. 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII).
32. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court firstly observes that the appeal proceedings commenced on 25 July 2003, the date on which the applicant's counsel lodged his grounds of appeal, and ended on 14 August 2003, when the Regional Court examined and dismissed the appeal. It follows that the appeal proceedings lasted twenty days.
33. The Court further observes that on 23 July 2003 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of robbery and in view of his previous convictions, danger of absconding and interfering with the proceedings. In his appeal against that detention order, the applicant's counsel contested these grounds. In the Court's opinion, these were straightforward matters, and it has not been argued by the Government that the case in itself disclosed any complex features.
34. The Court also notes 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. The Town Court received the appeal on 25 July 2003. However, it was not until 7 August 2003 that the appeal materials reached the Regional Court. In that respect the Court cannot accept the Government's argument that domestic law did not set any time-limits for transferring the criminal case from the first-instance court to the appeal court. It reiterates that it is for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see, mutatis mutandis, R.M.D. v. Switzerland, 26 September 1997, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI). In any event, the Regional Court received the appeal materials on 7 August 2003 and examined the appeal only on 14 August 2003. The Government did not provide any justification for this delay. 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 Rehbock, cited above, §§ 85 - 86, where the Court considered that a delay of twenty-three days on deciding on the application for release was excessive).
35. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the period of twenty days cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4. There has therefore been a violation of that provision.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
36. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
37. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
38. The Government considered that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claim and therefore it had to be rejected.
39. The Court considers that the domestic courts' failure to review the lawfulness of the applicant's detention in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 caused the applicant non-pecuniary damage, such as stress and frustration, w
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
