issue of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention during that period, consider having recourse to such alternative measures or, at the very minimum, seek to explain in their decisions why such alternatives would not have ensured that the trial would follow its proper course.
86. It is also of particular concern for the Court that on a number of occasions the domestic courts, using the same formula, simultaneously extended the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants. In the Court's view, this approach in itself is incompatible with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permits the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or of compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Dolgova v. Russia, No. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
(c) Conclusion
87. In sum, the Court finds that the domestic authorities' decisions were not based on an analysis of all the pertinent facts. They took no notice of the arguments in favour of the applicant's release pending trial.
88. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to refer to concrete relevant facts or consider alternative "preventive measures", the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which cannot be regarded as "sufficient". They thus failed to justify the applicant's continued deprivation of liberty for a period of over two years. It is hence not necessary to examine whether the proceedings against the applicant were conducted with due diligence during that period as such a lengthy period cannot in the circumstances be regarded as "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 (see Pekov v. Bulgaria, No. 50358/99, § 85, 30 March 2006).
89. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
90. The applicant further complained under Articles 5, 6 and 18 of the Convention that his detention had been unlawful, that the domestic courts had been biased and had pursued unlawful purposes having decided to arrest him.
91. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the evidence discloses no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
92. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
93. The applicant claimed 411,924 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing income lost during his detention. He further claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
94. The Government commented that the claims were baseless and could not be the direct cause of the violation alleged.
95. As to the claim in respect of the pecuniary damage, the Court finds no causal link between the violations found and the alleged loss of earnings. The Court therefore finds no reason to award the applicant any sum under this head (see, for similar reasons, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 102, 2 March 2006). At the same time the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration, caused by the fact that he has spent a long period in custody without relevant and sufficient grounds, cannot be compensated for by a mer
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
