onvention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belov, cited above §§ 108 et seq.; Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq.; Khudobin v. Russia, No. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova v. Russia, No. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Rokhlina v. Russia, No. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova, cited above, §§ 56 et seq.).
60. Having examined the materials submitted to it, the Court does not discern any fact or argument put forward by the domestic authorities when ruling on the applicant's pre-trial detention capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
61. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and by failing to address specific facts or consider alternative preventive measures the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which cannot be regarded as "sufficient" to justify its duration.
62. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
63. Lastly, the applicant complained that his arrest on 20 June 2000 and detention from 6 August to 7 December 2001 had been unlawful; that a search of his flat had not been compliant with applicable rules of criminal procedure; that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and unreasonably long; that his case had been considered by a partial tribunal; that he had been found guilty on the basis of inconclusive and insufficient evidence; that his lawyer had failed to carry out his defence effectively; that the trial court had failed to ensure presence of certain witnesses in court; that he had been sent to serve his sentence in a penitentiary establishment under more severe conditions than were prescribed by law. He referred to Article 6 of the Convention.
64. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence ratione materiae, it finds that the evidence discloses no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
65. 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
66. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
67. The Government submitted that the applicant had claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred in the course of his criminal prosecution. They opined that the applicant's claims should be dismissed. In any event, they considered them excessive.
68. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court observes that it has found a violation of the applicant's right to liberty in the present case in that the length of his detention was not
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
