ntion centre ended on 23 March 2001, that is, more than six months before the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (6 November 2002).
74. As regards the applicant's suggestion that the appeal decision of 22 May 2002 in his criminal case should be taken as the relevant "final decision" since he had raised the matter of the conditions of detention at the trial, the Court observes that the applicant's grievances at the trial essentially concerned ill-treatment for the purpose of extracting a confession and the allegedly unlawful length of detention in the temporary detention centre. In any event, it does not appear that the trial court, the primary mission of which was the determination of criminal charges against the applicant, was empowered to examine the substance of the applicant's grievance concerning the material conditions of detention, in particular on account of the overpopulation problem, and to afford him redress. The Court reiterates in that connection that where an applicant has tried a remedy that the Court considers inappropriate, the time taken to do so will normally not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit, which may lead to the application being rejected as out of time (see Rezgui v. France (dec.), No. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, and the Zenin decision, cited above). Thus, the Court dismisses the applicant's argument.
75. Nor should the replies of the national authorities to the applicant's complaints since December 2004, that is after the introduction of the present application, be taken as the relevant "final decisions". None of those authorities (the regional department of the Interior, the regional prosecutor's office or a court under the Code of Criminal Procedure) could at the time be considered as remedies capable of providing an adequate redress in relation to the complaint about the conditions of detention in 2001 (see paragraphs 53 - 56 above; see also, among other authorities, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, No. 15217/07, § 76 et seq., 12 March 2009). In fact, when lodging his application before the Court in November 2002, the applicant himself did not consider that any such complaint would afford any redress to him.
76. It follows that the relevant date for the calculation of the six-month time-limit is 23 March 2001, while the application was introduced only on 6 November 2002. Thus, the applicant has not complied with the six-month rule in respect of his complaint about the conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre.
(b) Barnaul remand centre
77. The Court reiterates that the applicant was detained in Barnaul remand centre during three periods: from 2 or 3 March to 12 March 2001; from 24 March 2001 to 6 April 2002 and from 7 to 27 June 2002. The Court does not consider that the above periods constituted a continuing situation. Thus, in so far as the first two periods are concerned, the complaint was lodged with the Court more than six months later. For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the applicant's subsequent attempts to bring his grievances about the material conditions of detention to the attention of the national authorities did not interrupt the running of the six month period (see paragraphs 51 and 8 above). It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
78. As regards the remaining period of detention from 7 to 27 June 2002, no issue arises as to the six-month time-limit. However, the Government suggested that after the period of detention complained of, the applicant should have brought civil proceedings against the State, claiming compensation in respect of any eventual health damage and non-pecuniary damage. However, the Government failed to specify the appropriate course of action and to provide any further particulars in relation to their assertion. Thus, the Government's
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 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
