He complained, in particular, that his detention from 19 February to 17 May 2004 had not complied with the requirement of lawfulness, because the court that had issued the extension order of 19 February 2004 had been partly composed of lay judges, whereas starting from 1 January 2004 the domestic law excluded lay judges from participation in the administration of justice in criminal matters.
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. Submissions by the parties
107. The Government submitted that in so far as the applicant's complaint concerned the period of his detention from 18 December 1998 to 14 March 2000, it should be dismissed for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit provided by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In so far as the complaint concerned the subsequent period, the Government submitted as follows: From 14 May 2001 to 16 May 2002 the applicant was lawfully detained after his conviction by the Rostov Regional Court. From 16 May 2002 to 17 May 2004 the applicant was detained on the basis of the court's orders extending his detention in compliance with a "procedure provided by law". The applicant's detention from 19 February to 17 May 2004 had complied with the requirement of lawfulness since the participation of lay assessors in examination of the applicant's case after 1 January 2004 was permitted by the principle of the continuity of the proceedings stipulated in the domestic law and was in the best interests of justice and the applicant himself.
108. The applicant maintained his complaint.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
109. The Court observes at the outset that a part of the applicant's complaint concerning the lawfulness of his detention refers to a period of pre-trial detention which ended more than six months before he lodged the application with the Court on 3 February 2004. The most recent period of detention that the Court may examine commenced on 26 June 2003. The Court therefore considers that the part of the applicant's complaint concerning the detention orders issued before 26 June 2003 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, No. 2708/02, § 83, 24 May 2007, and Moskovets v. Russia, No. 14370/03, § 48, 23 April 2009).
110. The Court further notes that the remainder of the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
111. 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 the 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 Khudoyorov, cited above, § 124, and Moskovets, cited above, § 53).
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
