durally defective. The second applicant complained that his detention from 17 April to 15 May 2003 had been unlawful. The relevant parts of Article 5 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:
...
(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. Admissibility
1. Complaints by the first applicant
40. The Court observes that the first applicant's pre-trial detention, in so far as it falls under the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis, ended on 19 September 2002 when he was convicted by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court. However, he lodged his application only on 19 May 2003, that is more than six months later. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
2. Complaint by the second applicant
41. The Government submitted that the second applicant had not made use of domestic remedies in connection with his complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention in the period from 17 April to 15 May 2003.
42. The Court observes that the Government did not identify a specific remedy of which the second applicant should have made use. In these circumstances, the Government's objection must be dismissed.
43. The Court further notes that the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
44. The second applicant submitted that from 17 April to 15 May 2003 he had been held in custody without judicial authorisation. This was evident from the text of the Town Court's decision which spoke of the six-month detention period that had expired on 17 April 2003. The Town Court had accepted the prosecutor's application for a three-month extension and granted such extension until 17 July 2003, which further corroborated the claim that the previously authorised detention period had expired on 17 April 2003. However, ex post facto authorisation of detention was not permitted by Russian law and was incompatible with the "right to security of person" under Article 5 of the Convention.
45. The Government emphasised that the second applicant had been held in custody on the basis of judicial decisions and in full compliance with the criminal-procedure rules.
46. The Court reiterates that the expressions "lawful" and "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. However, the "lawfulness" of detention under domestic law is not always the decisive element. The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see, among many other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 124, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
47. The Russian Constitution required that any period of detention be covered by a judicial authorisation. The Code of Criminal Procedure specified that the initial period of detention after a case was sent for trial may not exceed six months, with the possibility of an extension for a further three months (see paragraph 35 above).
48. On the facts, the Court observes that the case against the second applicant
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
