general principles to the present case
66. The Court notes that on 23 October 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment by which the applicant had been convicted, and ordered that she should remain in custody while the case was re-examined. On 20 January 2003 the Tambov Regional Court dismissed the applicant's application for release.
67. The Court observes that the Presidium of the Supreme Court gave no reasons for its decision to remand the applicant in custody. Nor did it set a time-limit for the continued detention or for a periodic review of the preventive measure. The Tambov Regional Court, having received the case file on 13 November 2002, did not re-examine the detention matter. The Government argued that it was not incumbent on the Presidium of the Supreme Court or the Tambov Regional Court to justify the detention order, provided that her detention did not exceed the statutory limit of eighteen months, since the charges against the applicant remained the same as in the previous set of proceedings.
68. The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, No. 2708/02, §§ 95 - 100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, No. 65734/01, §§ 65 - 70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, No. 22053/02, §§ 79 - 82, 3 July 2008). In particular, the Court has held that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see also Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, §§ 70 - 71, 2 March 2006, and {Stasaitis} v. Lithuania, No. 47679/99, § 67, 21 March 2002). Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific time-limit would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X).
69. The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It considers that the decision of 23 October 2002 did not comply with the requirements of clarity, foreseeability and protection from arbitrariness which together constitute the essential elements of "lawfulness" of detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 1.
70. The Court therefore considers that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 23 October 2002 to 9 April 2003.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
71. The applicant complained that her pre-trial detention had been excessively long and that it had been repeatedly extended without any indication of relevant and sufficient reasons. She relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
A. Submissions by the parties
72. The Government submitted that the length of the applicant's detention during the investigation and judicial proceedings had not been excessive. The time-limits provided for by the domestic law had not been exceeded, and her detention was necessary in view of the gravity of charges and the likelihood of her fleeing or obstructing the course of justice.
73. The applicant maintained her complaints.
B. The Court's assessment
1
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
