the applicant's counsel applied to the governor of remand prison IZ-77/4 for the applicant's release, claiming that the maximum detention period permitted by domestic law had expired. On 16 October 2008 the governor of the remand prison replied that the applicant had not appealed against the decision of 18 June 2008 authorising his detention and that the question of his release should be decided upon by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office.
52. On 1 December 2008 the applicant's counsel complained to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow that the applicant's detention was unlawful.
53. On 10 December 2008 the Babushkinskiy District Court informed the applicant's counsel that it had no jurisdiction to examine the complaint.
54. On 23 January 2009 the applicant's counsel complained to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, under Article 125 of the CCP, that the Russian Prosecutor General's Office had unlawfully failed to apply for an extension of the term of the applicant's detention as required by Article 109 of the CCP. On 27 January 2009 the President of the Tverskoy District Court returned the complaint for elimination of discrepancies.
55. On 4 May 2009 the applicant's counsel lodged another complaint under Article 125 of the CCP with the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow, alleging inaction on the part of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office.
56. On 7 May 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court refused to examine the applicant's complaint of 4 May 2009 for the reason that its subject matter did not fall within the ambit of Article 125 of the CCP.
57. On 14 May 2009 the Supreme Court ruled that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unvaried until 4 June 2009.
58. On 3 June 2009 the Moscow City Court ruled that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unvaried.
59. On 27 July 2009 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of 7 May 2009 and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.
60. On 4 September 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court again dismissed the applicant's complaint, arguing that Article 125 of the CCP was inapplicable since there had been no criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in Russia. It reasoned as follows:
"The [applicant's] requests to declare unlawful the inaction of the Moscow prosecutor's office on account of its failure to perform its function of supervising compliance with the law in custodial institutions could not be examined under Article 125 of the CCP because the prosecutors' supervision of the custodial system is not related to the criminal proceedings against [Mr] Khaydarov.
Acts and inaction of agents of the prosecutor's office can be challenged by way of another procedure which is not provided for in Article 125 of the CCP.
The request for extension of the term of custodial detention is an exclusive right of the competent bodies and a court is not entitled to impel [those bodies] to bring such requests."
61. On 11 September 2009 the applicant's counsel appealed against the decision of 4 September 2009.
62. On 14 September 2009 the applicant's counsel complained to the Taganskiy District Court that the applicant's detention was unlawful. Referring to Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, she argued that Article 109 of the CCP had been breached in the applicant's case as his term of detention had not been extended and that there had been no judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention.
63. On 16 September 2009 a judge of the Taganskiy District Court sent the applicant's counsel a letter explaining that it was open to the applicant to appeal against the decision on choosing the preventive meas
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
