y argument warranting a departure from the established case-law. Following the expiry of the detention order on 10 April 2004, the applicant's detention was not covered by a judicial authorisation. The Town Court's decision of 23 April 2004 did not mention the applicant's detention and its subsequent decision of 13 May 2004, upheld on appeal by the Tula Regional Court on 9 June 2004, merely rejected his application for release rather than constituting a formal detention order required under the domestic law. As the Court has already found in a similar case, applications for release filed by a defendant in custody do not exempt the domestic authorities from the obligation to authorise his or her detention "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" by issuing a formal detention order, as provided by Article 5 § 1. Finding otherwise would place on the defendant, rather than on the authorities, the burden of ensuring a lawful basis for his or her continued detention (see Melnikova v. Russia, No. 24552/02, § 61, 21 June 2007).
44. It is further noted that on 31 May 2004 the Town Court set the opening date for the trial and held that the defendants "should remain in custody". It did not, however, give any grounds for maintaining the custodial measure or fix a time-limit for the extended detention. This situation has also been examined in many cases against Russia, in which the Court found that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time was incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1. Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific time-limit would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, No. 2737/04, §§ 45 - 47, 9 July 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, No. 36932/02, §§ 112 - 114, 25 June 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, No. 36941/02, §§ 112 - 114, 23 April 2009; Shukhardin, cited above, §§ 65 - 70; Ignatov v. Russia, No. 27193/02, §§ 79 - 81, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, No. 2708/02, §§ 97 - 98, 24 May 2007; Nakhmanovich, cited above, §§ 70 - 71; and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 134 and 142). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It considers that the decision of 31 May 2004 did not comply with the requirements of clarity, foreseeability and protection from arbitrariness and that the ensuing period of the applicant's detention was not "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. This finding makes it unnecessary to examine whether the applicant's detention was also unlawful after 9 October 2004 on account of its being in excess of the maximum six-month period of detention "during the trial".
45. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 10 April to 4 November 2004.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
on account of the applicant's absence from the hearing
on 30 December 2003
46. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that he had not been brought to the hearing of 30 December 2003, which concerned the extension of his detention period, and that he had been represented by counsel Mr L., whom he had never seen before. In line with the Court's settled approach (see Lebedev, cited above, §§ 69 - 73; {Wloch} v. Poland, No. 27785/95, §§ 125 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI; and {Grauzinis} v. Lithuania, No. 37975/97, § 33, 10 October 2000), this complaint falls to be examined under
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
