nded on 23 May 2001 when the Sakhalin Regional Court upheld her conviction on appeal, whereas she firstly raised her relevant complaint on 7 May 2005 when submitting her observations, which is more than six months later. It follows that this complaint was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention
169. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) that from 25 October until 4 November 2000 there had been no valid domestic decision or other lawful basis for her pre-trial detention. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so..."
170. The applicant maintained her complaint.
171. The Government insisted that the applicant's pre-trial detention, throughout its entire period, had been extended in accordance with relevant domestic law and had fully conformed to the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. They submitted, in particular, that on 22 August 2000 a competent prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 25 October 2000, that on 20 October 2000 the applicant's case file had been sent to the trial court and that on 4 November 2000, within the time-limit of fourteen days fixed in the Code on Criminal Procedure then in force, a judge of the trial court scheduled a hearing in the applicant's case and authorised her further remand in custody. The Government, however, did not indicate the legal basis for the applicant's detention between 25 October and 4 November 2000, nor did they submit a document confirming the existence of that basis, despite the Court's specific request to that end.
A. Admissibility
172. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
173. The Court observes, and it has not been disputed by the parties, that between the date of expiry of the authorised detention period on 25 October 2000 and the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court subsequent decision of 4 November 2000 ordering the applicant's further remand in custody, there was no decision, either by a prosecutor or a judge, authorising the applicant's detention. It is also common ground that in that period the applicant was held in detention on the basis of the fact that the criminal case against her had been referred to the trial court.
174. The Court has already examined and found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in a number of cases concerning the practice of holding defendants in custody solely on the basis of the fact that their case has been submitted to the court. It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation, with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation, was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 146 - 51, ECHR 2005-... or Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 89 - 93, 1 March 2007
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
