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

pplicant to Uzbekistan.
21. On an unspecified date between August and November 2008 the applicant was transferred from Perm to detention facility No. IZ-77/4 in Moscow.
22. On 21 January 2009 the applicant complained about his detention to Babushkinskiy District Court in Moscow. The complaint was submitted to the administration of the detention facility for further transmission to the court on 26 January 2009 and registered with the number C-12. However, on 16 June 2009 Babushkinskiy District Court informed the applicant that they had not received this complaint.
23. On 24 June 2009 the applicant complained to Tverskoy District Court in Moscow that his detention pending extradition was unlawful. He stated firstly that he had been detained pending extradition for more than a year without any legal extension of the detention, secondly that he had not had any opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and thirdly that the provisions of Russian criminal procedure legislation concerning detention pending extradition did not meet the "quality of law" standard prescribed by Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention.
24. On 21 July 2009 Tverskoy District Court rejected the applicant's complaint, stating the following:
"...Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [concerning measures of restraint] regulates the procedure for the extension of pre-trial detention only in respect of those suspects and the accused against whom the Russian authorities have initiated criminal proceedings...
The procedure concerning the imposition of the measure of restraint in respect of the applicant is regulated by Article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not provide for an extension of detention with a view to extradition.
At the same time it should be noted that the maximum term of detention of eighteen months, as prescribed by Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code... has not been violated...
Therefore, the court finds that the applicant's complaint is unsubstantiated and should be rejected..."
25. The applicant appealed against this decision to Moscow City Court. On 7 October 2009 the latter upheld the decision of 21 July 2009 and left the applicant's complaint that his detention was unlawful unexamined.
26. The applicant further appealed to Moscow City Court through the supervisory review procedure. On 17 November 2009 his appeal was dismissed by the City Court as unsubstantiated.
27. On 8 December 2009 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General's Office and the Moscow Prosecutor that his detention was unlawful and requested to be released. He stated that his detention had not been extended by domestic courts and that the application of the interim measures by the Court (see paragraph 15 above) could not serve as the basis for his continued detention.
28. On 8 December 2009 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with Moscow City Court concerning unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention. This appeal was dismissed on 9 February 2010.
29. On 21 December 2009 the maximum eighteen-month detention period laid down in Article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure expired, but the applicant remained in detention.
30. On 23 April 2010 Babushkinskiy District Court rejected the prosecutor's request for the applicant's house arrest.
31. On 23 April 2010 the Babushkinskiy inter-district prosecutor's office ordered the applicant's release from detention. On 26 April 2010 the prosecutor's office ordered the applicant to sign an undertaking not to leave the area.

3. The applicant's requests for refugee status
and temporary asylum

32. On 6 November 2008 the applicant lodged a request with the Moscow Department



> 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet