ention might have arisen during that period. In particular, the applicant sought to argue before the courts that his detention had ceased to be lawful after the expiry of the time-limits set in Article 109 of the CCrP. By virtue of Article 5 § 4 he was entitled to apply to a "court" having jurisdiction to decide "speedily" whether or not his deprivation of liberty had become "unlawful" in the light of new factors which emerged subsequent to the initial decision to place him in custody (ibid). However, it follows from the considerations above that the applicant was not afforded such an opportunity.
177. In these circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the provisions of domestic law secured the applicant's right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention would be examined by a court.
178. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Government failed to show that the existence of the remedies invoked was sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice and, hence, that these remedies lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see A. and E. Riis v. Norway, No. 9042/04, § 41, 31 May 2007, and Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A No. 198). The Government's objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must therefore be rejected.
179. It follows that throughout the term of the applicant's detention pending extradition he did not have at his disposal any procedure for a judicial review of its lawfulness.
180. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
(b) Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
181. The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 5 enshrines a fundamental human right, namely, the protection of the individual against arbitrary interference by the State with his or her right to liberty (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 76, Reports 1996-VI). The text of Article 5 makes it clear that the guarantees it contains apply to "everyone" (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 3455/05, § 162, ECHR 2009-...). Sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds on which persons may be deprived of their liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see A. and Others, cited above, § 163).
182. 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... extradition" and that his detention fell under Article 5 § 1 (f). This provision does not require that the detention of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to extradition be reasonably considered necessary, for example to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing. In this respect, Article 5 § 1 (f) provides a different level of protection from Article 5 § 1 (c): all that is required under sub-paragraph (f) is that "action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition" (see Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 135, with further references).
183. Whilst it is not in dispute between the parties that the applicant's detention was covered by Article 5 § 1 (f), their positions differ on the issue of whether it was "lawful" within the meaning of that provision.
184. Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Mooren v. Germany [GC], No. 11364/03, § 72, ECHR 2009-..., and Erkalo v. the Netherlands, 2 September 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-VI).
1
> 1 2 3 ... 33 34 35 ... 38 39 40
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
