particular, to Article 255 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure which indicated that a defendant's detention pending trial should not exceed six months and could be further repeatedly extended for no longer than three months in respect of defendants charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences. In sum, the Government considered that, in the applicant's case, on 28 July 2005 his detention pending trial had been extended until 6 January 2006. In line with the rules of criminal procedure, the trial court had carried out a new review of the issue of the applicant's detention on 1 December 2005, that is, before the expiration of that six-month period, and lawfully authorised his further detention until 12 April 2006.
33. The applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
34. The Court notes that this 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.
B. Merits
35. 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. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40 - 41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
36. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that, as the Government explained, on 28 July 2005, with reference to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo authorised an extension of his detention pending trial with reference to Article 255 of the CCrP. The Court accepts that the District Court acted within its powers. However, the Court also notes that the District Court did not indicate a time-limit for the applicant's detention pending trial.
37. In this connection the Court takes cognisance of the interpretation of Article 255 of the CCrP provided by the Supreme Court of Russia wherein the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that the law required that, when deciding on the extension of a defendant's detention, the trial court should specify its time-limit (see paragraph 30).
38. Having regard to the above, the Court rejects the Government's argument that, as a matter of law, the trial court was not required to indicate the time-limit of the applicant's detention and finds that the District Court failed to comply with the applicable rules of the domestic criminal procedure. It therefore considers that the applicant's detention from 23 September to 1 December 2005 was not "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law".
39. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
40. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. The Court will examine the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
41. The Government claimed that the applicant's pre-trial detention was compatib
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
