ion by unsuccessfully complaining to the Tverskoy District Court in November 2008.
91. The applicant disagreed with the Government. He submitted that neither of the court orders of 1 November 2007 and 30 January 2008 had provided any time-limits for his detention and that the length of his detention was excessive, in violation of all relevant provisions of the Russian criminal procedure regulations.
92. The applicant further submitted that the Russian courts had not reviewed the lawfulness of his detention by failing to recognise him as a party to any relevant criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 26 - 27 and 29 - 30 above).
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
93. The Court notes that the applicant's complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
a) Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
94. 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 deportation or extradition" and that his detention fell under Article 5 § 1 (f). The parties dispute, however, whether this detention was "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
95. The Court observes that the applicant was detained in Russia pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor's office in Uzbekistan. His detention was initially authorised on 1 November 2007 by the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court and then upheld on 30 January 2008. Neither of the decisions provided time-limits for the applicant's detention.
96. As for the Government's reference that the applicant's detention in view of his extradition to Uzbekistan had complied with the requirements of Article 466 § 1 of the CCP, the Court notes that according to the decisions of the Constitutional Court No. 158-O of 11 July 2006 and No. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007 and the Ruling of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 22 of 29 October 2009, when dealing with the matters concerning the detention pending extradition, Russian courts should comply with the requirements of Article 108 of the CCP and that the detention in view of extradition could be extended only in compliance with the requirements of Article 109 of the CCP (see paragraphs 65 - 68 above).
97. In a number of its recent judgments the Court has already found that the provisions of the Russian law governing detention of persons with a view to extradition were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (see, for example, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, No. 656/06, § 72, 11 October 2007; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 142; Muminov, cited above, § 122; and Khudyakova v. Russia, No. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).
98. The Court upholds the findings made in the above-mentioned cases and finds that, in spite of the Government's references to the contrary, the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to extradition and setting time-limits for such detention, the deprivation of liberty to which the applicant was subjected was not circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. In particular, the Court observes that neither of the court orders to which the applicant referred, set any time-limit for his detention (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above). Under the provisions governing the general terms of detention (Article 108 of the CCP), the time-limit for detention pending investigation was fixed at two months. A judge could extend that period up to six months. Further extensions could only be grant
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 ... 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
