Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.07.2009 «Дело Авдеев и Веряев (Avdeyev and Veryayev) против России» [англ.]

3. Time-limits for detention "before the court" /
"during judicial proceedings"

30. From the date the prosecutor refers the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is classified as "before the court" (or "during judicial proceedings").
31. The new CCrP provides that the term of detention "during judicial proceedings" is calculated from the date the court received the file up to the date on which the judgment is given. The period of detention "during judicial proceedings" may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3).

E. Time-limits for trial proceedings

32. The new CCrP empowers the judge, within fourteen days of receipt of the case file, (1) to refer the case to a competent court; (2) to fix a date for a preliminary hearing; or (3) to fix a trial date (Article 227). In the latter case, the trial proceedings must begin no later than fourteen days after the judge has fixed the trial date (Article 233 § 1 of the new CCrP). There are no restrictions on fixing the date of a preliminary hearing.
33. The duration of the entire trial proceedings is not limited in time.
34. The new CCrP provides that the appeal court must start the examination of the appeal no later than one month after it is lodged (Article 374).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention

35. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) that their detention from 5 June 2003 to 9 January 2004 had been unlawful. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide:
"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:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so..."

A. Submissions by the parties

36. The Government argued that the applicants' detention had been lawful, complying with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. They further submitted that the applicants did not appeal against the detention orders issued between 10 July 2003 and 9 January 2004 and that their complaint should, therefore, be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
37. The applicants submitted that their detention had lacked any legal basis. The District Court's detention orders either did not have any reasoning at all or did not give valid reasons.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

38. The Court observes at the outset that the applicants' complaint only refers to a particular period of their detention, that is from 5 June 2003, when the Regional Court quashed the conviction of 9 April 2003 and authorised their continued detention, to 9 January 2004. The Court further notes the Government's submission, which was not contested by the applicants, that the latter had failed to appeal against the orders extending their detention between 10 July and 8 October 2003.
39. In this connection, the Court points out that the applicants were represented, from the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, by two counsel of their own choosing. No explanation has been offered for their failure to lodge, or advise the applicants to lodge, a judicial appeal against the detention orders. The Court therefore considers that the part of the applic

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10