a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], No. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II). The opportunity for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A No. 318-B).
25. Turning to the circumstances of the present case the Court observes that on 14 August 2003 the Regional Court examined the applicant's appeal against the detention order of 23 July 2003. The prosecutor was present at the hearing and requested that the appeal be dismissed. The applicant, who was in custody, was not brought to the hearing. As to the applicant's counsel, the Government submitted that he had been duly notified of the hearing. The applicant argued that counsel had never received any notification. In that respect the Court observes that the Government did not provide it with any evidence that the notice of the hearing had in fact reached the applicant's counsel. In these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the applicant's counsel was duly notified of the appeal hearing of 14 August 2003.
26. The Court is of the view that to ensure equality of arms it was necessary to give the applicant the opportunity to appear, either in person or through some form of representation, at the same time as the prosecutor, so that he could reply to the latter's arguments (compare Kampanis, cited above, § 58). Given that neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at the examination of the applicant's appeal on 14 August 2003, whereas the prosecutor was present and made submissions, the Court considers that those proceedings did not meet the requirements of Article 5 § 4. The Court also notes that there is nothing in the appeal decision of 14 August 2003 to suggest that the appeal court examined whether the applicant's counsel had been duly notified of the appeal hearing and, if he had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned or whether the applicant should have been brought to the hearing.
27. Finally, the Court notes that the Government have not provided any evidence that the applicant or his counsel were informed about the outcome of the appeal proceedings or served with a copy of the decision of 14 August 2003. It follows that the applicant was left in uncertainty as to the fate of his appeal for a long time and was deprived of an effective check on the lawfulness of his detention.
28. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the examination of the applicant's appeal against the detention order of 23 July 2003 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Accordingly, there has been a violation of that Article.
2. Speediness of the review of the applicant's detention
29. The Government submitted that in accordance with procedure which existed at the material time, scheduling of appeal hearings was done by the first-instance court, which had also to transfer the criminal case to the appeal court. In that respect the Government noted that the domestic law did not set any time-limits for transferring the case file to the appeal court.
30. The applicant maintained his complaint. He argued in particular that, in breach of domestic law, it took the Regional Court more than three days to examine the appeal.
31. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to persons detained a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. P
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
