st 2002 was covered by Article 5 § 1 (c) as there existed - and this seems undisputed between the parties - a reasonable suspicion of his having committed numerous crimes. The detention took place in the context of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant with a view to securing his presence before the trial court and was based on court decisions.
71. In ordering the applicant's detention on 31 August and 17 December 2001 the trial court acted within its powers and there is nothing to suggest that those decisions were invalid or unlawful under domestic law (see paragraphs 54 and 60 - 63 above, and {Stasaitis} v. Lithuania (dec.), No. 47679/99, 28 November 2000).
72. The question whether the reasons for the decisions were sufficient and relevant is analysed below in connection with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 152, ECHR 2005-X).
73. In so far as the applicant objected to his placement in a psychiatric institution, the Court notes that remand in custody under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention may be perfectly compatible with lawful confinement in a psychiatric hospital effected for the purpose of establishing whether or not the accused person's mental health has a bearing on his criminal liability for the offences with which he has been charged; deprivation of liberty may be justified on more than one of the grounds listed in Article 5 § 1 (see Gulub Atanasov v. Bulgaria, No. 73281/01, § 74, 6 November 2008). On the facts, the Court finds nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the impugned decision as the trial court seemed to have been acting in good faith and may well have had good reasons to believe that in the circumstances of the case a fresh expert examination was justified and necessary. It is true that, in view of the Court's conclusions in paragraph 90 below, the examination in question could have been conducted in a different form, namely in an outpatient, and not in-patient, setting. The fact remains, however, that the applicant's continued detention ordered by the trial court decision of 17 December 2001 was covered by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention and was not unlawful.
74. Overall, in view of the above, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand between 31 August 2001 and 14 August 2002.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
75. The applicant complained that the domestic authorities had violated his right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial by repeatedly subjecting him to psychiatric examinations, which had resulted in unjustified delays in the proceedings. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"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."
76. The Government contested that argument.
77. The applicant maintained his initial complaints.
A. Admissibility
78. The Court considers that for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, multiple, consecutive detention periods should be regarded as a whole and the six-month period should start to run only from the end of the last period of remand in custody, in the instant case from 14 August 2002 (see, for example, {Jecius} v. Lithuania, cited above, § 44, Gubkin v. Russia, No. 36941/02, § 134, 23 April 2009; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, No. 36911/02, § 40, 24 May 2007; and Solmaz v. Turkey, No. 27561/02, §§ 34 - 37, 16 January 2007). It follows that the Court is competent to make an overall evaluation of the applicant's enti
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 ... 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
