Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Хайдаров (Khaydarov) против России» [англ.]

ovisions had been sufficiently clear.
120. The length of the applicant's detention could be explained by the complexity of the check undertaken by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office as regards the applicant's nationality. The detention after 3 December 2008, when the applicant had been served with the extradition order, had been justified by the fact that he had appealed against it, as well as by the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
121. The applicant had had an opportunity to complain about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention using the procedure referred to in the decision by the Russian Constitutional Court of 1 March 2007, that is, under Articles 97 to 101 and 108 to 110 of the CCP and Chapter 54 of the CCP. The applicant had repeatedly complained that his detention had been unlawful, in particular, to the Babushkinskiy, Tverskoy and Zamoskvoretskiy District Courts of Moscow and to the governor of the remand prison.
122. The Government concluded that the applicant's rights under Article 5 of the Convention had not been violated.

2. The applicant

123. The applicant asserted that the term of his detention had exceeded the maximum term permitted by Article 109 of the CCP and that it had never been extended in breach of domestic law since the decision of 18 June 2008 could not be regarded as a decision on prolongation of the term of custodial detention. The applicant also claimed that the term of his detention had been unforeseeable, in breach of the quality-of-law requirement, because the Russian prosecutors had not applied to a court for extension of the term of his detention and the domestic courts had found that the prosecutors should not have done so in the absence of domestic criminal proceedings against him. He further stated that no extradition proceedings against him had been pending after the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and that accordingly his detention had ceased to be justifiable under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention.
124. The applicant also maintained his complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

125. The Court notes that the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It considers that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
126. The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 5 enshrines a fundamental human right, namely the protection of the individual against arbitrary interference by the State with his or her right to liberty (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 76, Reports 1996-VI). The text of Article 5 makes it clear that the guarantees it contains apply to "everyone" (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 3455/05, § 162, ECHR 2009-...). Sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds on which persons may be deprived of their liberty, and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (ibid., § 163).
127. 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... extradition" and that his detention fell under Article 5 § 1 (f). The parties disagreed, however, as to whether the detention was "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
128. Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 20 21 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet