Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.11.2010 «Дело Султанов (Sultanov) против России» [англ.]

5 §§ 1 and 4
of the Convention

75. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that his detention pending extradition had been unlawful and indefinite in its duration, in violation of the relevant provisions of the domestic law. The relevant parts of Article 5 § 1 (f) read as follows:
"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:
...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition."
76. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to review the lawfulness of his detention. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention reads as follows:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."

A. The parties' submissions

77. The Government insisted that the applicant's detention pending extradition had been lawful as it had been based on the Namangan Criminal Court decision of 5 June 2008, and that it fully complied with the provisions of Article 466 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
78. The Government contended that the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged failure of the domestic courts to review the lawfulness of his detention was manifestly ill-founded as he had challenged the lawfulness of his detention by unsuccessfully complaining to Tverskoy District Court and Moscow City Court.
79. The applicant disagreed with the Government. He submitted that neither of the extension orders of 18 June and 6 August 2008 had provided any time-limits for his detention and that the length of his detention was excessive, in violation of all relevant provisions of the Russian criminal procedure regulations.
80. The applicant further submitted that Tverskoy District Court had not reviewed the lawfulness of his detention by failing to recognise him as a party to any relevant criminal proceedings (see paragraph 24 above).

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

81. The Court notes that the applicant's complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
82. It is common ground between the parties that the applicant was detained as a person "against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition" and that his detention fell under Article 5 § 1 (f). The parties dispute, however, whether this detention was "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
83. The Court observes that the applicant was detained in Russia under an arrest warrant issued by an Uzbek court. His detention was initially authorised by the Perm transport prosecutor's office on 18 June and subsequently on 6 August 2008. Neither of the decisions provided time-limits for the applicant's detention.
84. As for the Government's reference that the applicant's detention with a view to extradition to Uzbekistan had complied with the requirements of Article 466 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court notes that according to the decisions of the Constitutional Court No. 158-O of 11 July 2006 and No. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007 and the Ruling of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 ... 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet