her: (1) to fix the trial date; (2) to return the case for an additional investigation; (3) to stay or discontinue the proceedings; or (4) to refer the case to a court with jurisdiction to hear it (Article 221). The new CCrP empowers the judge, within the same time-limit, (1) to refer the case to a competent court; (2) to fix a date for a preliminary hearing (предварительное слушание); or (3) to fix a date for trial (Article 227). The trial must begin no later than fourteen days after the judge has fixed the trial date (Article 239 of the old CCrP, Article 233 § 1 of the new CCrP). There are no restrictions on fixing the date of a preliminary hearing.
56. The duration of the trial is not limited.
57. Under the old CCrP, the appeal court was required to examine an appeal against the first-instance judgment within ten days of its receipt. In exceptional circumstances or in complex cases, or in proceedings before the Supreme Court, this time-limit could be extended by up to two months (Article 333). No further extensions were possible.
58. The new CCrP establishes that the appeal court must start the examination of the appeal no later than one month after its receipt (Article 374).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention
59. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that her detention had been unlawful. 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..."
A. Submissions by the parties
60. The Government argued that the applicant's detention had been lawful and had complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. It had been duly authorised and was justified not only by the gravity of the charges but also the likelihood that the applicant would flee, commit another crime or obstruct the course of justice. They further submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as regarded her detention before 14 March 2002. In particular, she had not appealed against the decision of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov of 22 August 2001, or the subsequent extensions by the prosecutor's office, and she had not made any requests for release while the case was being examined by the court. Between 14 March 2002 and 23 October 2002 the applicant had been serving her sentence in accordance with the judgment of the Tambov Regional Court. On the latter date the Presidium of the Supreme Court had quashed the judgment in supervisory review proceedings and remitted the case for fresh examination by the fist-instance court. It had also ordered the applicant's detention pending a new trial; since the scope of the new trial was supposed to be based on the same facts, the grounds for the applicant's detention were, by implication, the same as during the first set of proceedings. For this reason the Presidium was absolved from stating any reasons for her detention. After 13 November 2002, when the case file had been transferred to the Tambov Regional Court, the applicant's detention had been covered by Article 255 of the new CCrP and had not required the court's authorisation because the supervisory instance had already authorised it. The length of the detention between 23 October 2002 and 9 April 2004, when the applicant had been acquitted and released, had not exceeded the statutory limit of 18 months and ha
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
