Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.05.2010 «Дело Ходжаев (Khodzhayev) против России» [англ.]

A. The parties' submissions

1. The Government

108. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention as he had not complained about either the alleged unlawfulness or the length of his detention pending extradition to a prosecutor's office or a court. They also submitted that the applicant had not appealed against the decisions of 30 November and 28 December 2007.
109. The Government further argued that the applicant's detention had been necessary to ensure his extradition to Tajikistan and lawful under both Russian legal provisions and international legal standards. The issue of extradition had been examined promptly and properly.
110. On 28 November 2007 the official of the Odintsovo prosecutor's office had notified the applicant of the reasons for his arrest; during the interview the applicant had clearly stated in writing that he had not been persecuted on political grounds and had not been a refugee. During the following two weeks the applicant had not requested a lawyer.
111. The term of the applicant's detention pending extradition had been compatible with the requirements of Article 109 of the CCP, which had been applicable in the applicant's case by virtue of the Constitutional Court's ruling of 4 April 2006. The period of custodial detention for those accused of serious offences could not exceed twelve months; the applicant's detention pending extradition had lasted ten months. The term of the applicant's detention, although not specified in the Town Court's decision of 28 December 2007, had been established by Article 62 of the Minsk Convention and Article 109 of the CCP; therefore, in the Government's submission, the applicant could have been detained for forty days prior to receipt of the extradition request and for up to twelve months pending examination of the extradition request. The applicant had had the benefit of a procedure enabling him to challenge lawfulness of his detention.

2. The applicant

112. The applicant asserted that his placement in custody was unlawful as it had never been extended by the domestic courts. He also maintained his complaints under Article 5 §§ 2 and 4.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

(a) Article 5 § 2 of the Convention
113. The Court takes note of the Government's plea of non-exhaustion as regards the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. However, it does not deem it necessary to examine this matter for the following reason.
114. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 2 of the Convention contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. This provision is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph 2 any person arrested must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph 4. Whilst this information must be conveyed promptly, it need not be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest. Whether the content and promptness of the information conveyed were sufficient is to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 40, Series A No. 182).
115. The Court further reiterates that when a person is arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime, Article 5 § 2 neither requires that the necessary information be given in a particular form, nor that it consists of a complete list of th



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 21 22 23

	Поделиться:	Tweet