ibed 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. The parties' submissions
28. The applicant argued that his detention from 4 to 13 January 2005 had not been authorised by a proper authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. He submitted that the lawful term of his detention had ended on 4 January 2005 when the five-day period for the remedying of the violations by the prosecutor had expired. On 13 January 2005 the Town Court had authorised the detention during the disputed period retroactively, in violation of the domestic law of criminal procedure.
29. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies because he had failed to appeal against the decision of 30 December 2004 in the part concerning the extension of the pre-trial detention. In any event, the applicant's detention from 4 to 13 December 2005 was duly authorised by the decision of 30 December 2004, compatible with the domestic procedural rules and free from arbitrariness. Given that the applicant remained in detention "pending trial" until the date of the receipt of his case by the prosecutor, Article 255 of the CCrP was applicable. In accordance with that provision, the applicant could have remained in detention "pending trial" for up to six months (see paragraph 22 above). As regards the five-day time-limit set out by the domestic court, it only concerned the remedying of the violations in the investigation file by the prosecutor, but not the applicant's pre-trial detention. The five-day time-limit set out for remedying the violations, in its turn, started running from the day the investigator received the file, which was 11 January 2005, immediately after the public holidays. Upon receipt of the case file, the investigator duly asked for an extension of the time-limit for the investigation and the applicant's detention pending the investigation. Such an extension was authorised by the Town Court's decision of 13 January 2005. Therefore, the applicant's detention was lawful. The Government contended that under the judgment of 22 March 2005 the period between 4 and 13 January 2005 had counted toward the applicant's prison term.
30. The applicant maintained his complaint.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
31. As regards exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that the complaint intended to be made to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic body and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many others, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A No. 200). Turning to the application at hand, the Court notes that the applicant complains solely of the lawfulness of his detention during the period from 4 to 13 January 2005 whereas he does not dispute the legality of his detention either before or after these dates. Therefore, in the eyes of the Court the crux of the applicant's problem was not the extension of his detention after 30 December 2004 in itself, but the exact duration and the grounds for the detention after 4 January 2005, as well as the manner in which the authorities interpreted and applied the extension order of 30 December 2004. The Court notes that the applicant raised this issue in the court proceedings concerning the extension on 13 January 2005 and subsequently on appeal on 4 February 2005. In particular, he submitted in the grounds of appeal that his detention on 4 - 13 January 2005 had been
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
