ed to the applicant on 26 November 2008 stating that his detention "...could be repealed by a court only if the extradition decision of the Prosecutor General's Office is overruled..."
25. On 17 November 2008 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 8 November 2008) the applicant complained to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. He stated that he had been detained for more than a year without any extensions of his detention by domestic courts and that the authorities had failed to examine the lawfulness of his detention.
26. On 16 December 2008 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applicant's complaint for the following reasons:
"...under the provisions of Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code... decisions and actions (omissions) [of authorities involved in criminal proceedings]... could be appealed against to the District Court...
...from the submitted materials it follows that...no investigation by the Russian authorities is being conducted against M. Yuldashev... all actions related to his arrest and detention were taken under the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of January 22, 1993 [the Minsk Convention]... and under Article 466 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure regulating the measures of restraint in... matters relating to extradition...
Under such circumstances this application cannot be examined under Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code... which implies [only] the examination of complaints against officials lodged within the framework of a criminal investigation [being carried out] in the Russian Federation..."
27. On 24 December 2008 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Moscow City Court. He stated, inter alia, that the lawfulness of his detention had not been examined for more than a year and also stated the following:
"...[the Tverskoy District Court] groundlessly referring to the absence of a certain procedural status for the applicant in the Russian judicial system, deprived him of the possibility of re-examination of the length of his detention..."
28. On 18 March 2009 the Moscow City Court rejected the applicant's complaint and upheld the decision of 16 December 2008.
29. On 20 April 2009 the applicant again complained about his detention to the Tverskoy District Court and requested to be released. He stated that he had been in detention for almost eighteen months, that the length of his detention violated Articles 108 and 109 of the CCP and that the domestic courts had failed to review the lawfulness of his detention.
30. On the same date, 20 April 2009, the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applicant's complaint as "the object of the complaint did not fall within the requirements of Article 125 of the CCP".
31. On 2 May 2009 the maximum eighteen-month detention period laid down in Article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure expired, but the applicant remained in detention.
32. On 2 May 2009 the applicant appealed against the decision of 20 April 2009 to the Moscow City Court. He stated that he had been detained on 1 November 2007 and that the term of his detention pending extradition was indefinite as it had not been extended by domestic courts. The applicant referred to Articles 108 and 109 of the CCP and the Constitutional Court's decisions No. 101-0 of 4 April 2006 and No. 333-OP of 1 March 2007.
33. On 29 July 2009 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's appeal for failure to comply with the time frame for lodging an appeal.
34. On 20 August 2009 the applicant appealed through the supervisory review procedure to the Presidium of the Moscow City Court against the decision of 20 April 2009.
35. On 31 August 2009 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's
> 1 2 3 4 ... 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
