the Code of Criminal Procedure. While the applicant's transfer would certainly have required some logistical arrangements, they could not have been particularly complex, taking into account the short distance between Moscow and Tula and also the fact that his transfer two weeks later took just one day (from 15 to 16 January 2004).
53. Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that the participation of legal-aid counsel Mr L. was sufficient to ensure the fairness of the remand proceedings. It notes that Mr S., the applicant's previous counsel, was unavailable on the day of the hearing and Mr L. was appointed to take his place. This being a last-minute replacement, Mr L. did not have time to travel to Moscow to take instructions from the applicant or discuss the matter with him. However, the Town Court did not consider the possibility of adjourning the hearing with a view to either ensuring the participation of Mr S., who had the benefit of knowing the applicant and his case, or allowing Mr L. sufficient time and facilities to confer with the applicant and to study the case file.
54. Lastly, the Court notes that the Regional Court did nothing to cure on appeal the shortcomings of the proceedings before the Town Court. It rejected the applicant's complaints concerning his absence from the hearing and upheld the extension order issued by the Town Court.
55. In sum, the Court finds that the applicant was deprived of an effective review of the lawfulness of his continued detention. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
on account of the failure to examine the statement
of appeal of 7 June 2004
56. The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 4 that his appeal against the extension order of 31 May 2004 had not been examined.
57. The Government submitted that the statement of appeal had been received by the Town Court but that it had not been forwarded to the Regional Court for consideration.
A. Admissibility
58. 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
59. The applicant pointed out that, after his case had been sent for trial, his status as a detainee had changed according to the domestic classification from "detention during the investigation" to "detention during the trial". On 31 May 2004 the Town Court had extended his detention, without verifying whether the grounds for holding him in custody still obtained. In those circumstances, the consideration of his appeal by the Regional Court had acquired particular importance. However, his appeal had never been examined.
60. The Government accepted that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the failure to forward the applicant's appeal to the Regional Court for consideration.
61. The Court takes note of the Government's admission. It considers that the failure by the domestic authorities to secure the examination of a validly lodged appeal against an order extending the applicant's detention is a serious shortcoming undermining the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 (see Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 200 - 202). Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
62. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated after the arrest and that his parents' life had become harder without his assistance. He also complained under Article 6 § 2 that he had been portrayed as a criminal in the local media.
> 1 2 3 ... 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
