tween November 2003 and June 2004. In his observations lodged with the Court on 29 December 2006 the applicant complained in addition of the domestic courts' failure speedily to examine his complaint about the unlawfulness of his placement in custody in December 2002. The Court considers that the present complaints fall to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. Submissions by the parties
112. The Government, addressing the applicant's claims of the domestic courts' failure to examine his appeal against the decision of 8 October 2003 and the request for release lodged on 24 November 2003, submitted that, by virtue of the decision issued on 2 July 1998 by the Russian Constitutional Court, any judicial decision pertaining to examination of parties' requests for a change of a preventive measure was amenable to appeal and the merits of such an appeal should have been examined by an appeal court. The Government stressed that the applicant's appeals against the detention decisions, save for the one issued on 8 October 2003, had, in fact, been examined by the appeal court. The Government, relying on Article 120 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, further noted that the Leninksiy District Court should have examined the merits of the applicant's request for release lodged on 24 November 2003, even if the new request had been a mere restatement of the application for release which had already been dismissed by the District Court.
113. As regards the speediness of the review of the detention matters, the Government noted that the District and Regional courts had examined the applicant's requests for release and his appeals within the time-limits established by the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
114. The applicant drew the Court's attention to the fact that the Government, in substance, accepted that his right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention had been violated by the domestic courts' refusal to examine his appeal against the decision of 8 October 2003 and his application for release lodged on 24 November 2003. He maintained his complaints concerning delays in the examination of his requests for release and appeals against the detention decisions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
115. The Court firstly notes that the complaint related to the domestic courts' alleged failure to examine speedily the applicant's appeal against the arrest and placement in custody in December 2002 was raised by the applicant for the first time in his observations on 29 December 2006. This complaint was introduced out of time, as the final decision on the matter was taken by the Smolensk Regional Court on 6 February 2003 (see paragraph 13 above), that is more than six months before the applicant raised the issue with the Court, and it must thus be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
116. The Court further observes that in the application form lodged on 26 July 2004 the applicant complained about delays in the examination of the detention matters after November 2003. In this regard, the Court observes that the complaints relating to the detention decisions which were taken in the final instance before 26 January 2004 were also introduced outside the six-month time-limit and must be dismissed pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
117. The Court notes that the applicant's remaining complaints raised under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
