rson. 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. The parties' submissions
85. The Government argued that the applicant's detention was lawful. The term of the detention authorised by the decision of 2 July 2004 had expired on 4 August 2004. The district court had received the case file from the prosecutor on 5 August 2004. Pursuant to Article 227 § 3 of the CCP, the district court had had fourteen days starting from the date of receipt of the case file from the prosecutor to decide on the applicant's detention. The district court's decision of 16 August 2004 that the applicant should remain in custody had been compatible with domestic laws and judicial practice in place at the material time because it had been taken before the adoption of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 March 2005.
86. The applicant insisted on his complaints. He argued that his detention between 4 and 16 August 2004 had not been based on a court order and that his detention starting from 1 February 2005 had not been justified by valid reasons and thus had been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
87. In their further observation on the admissibility and merits of the case the Government claimed, in vague terms and referring to the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 March 2005, that should the applicant have brought a request for supervisory review of the lawfulness of the period of his detention that commenced on 4 August 2004 after 22 March 2005, he would have obtained redress regarding the alleged violation of his rights at the national level.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) Decision of 1 February 2005
88. The Court notes that on 1 February 2005 the district court extended the applicant's detention until 3 May 2005 on the ground of the gravity of the charges against him. It reiterates in this respect that a court's decision to maintain a custodial measure would not breach Article 5 § 1 provided that the court "had acted within its jurisdiction... [and] had the power to make an appropriate order" (see {Jecius} v. Lithuania, No. 34578/97, § 69, ECHR 2000-IX).
89. In the Court's view, the district court acted within its powers in making the decision of 1 February 2005, and there is nothing to suggest that it was invalid or unlawful under domestic law, or that it was inappropriate for the purpose of Article 5 § 1 (c). 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 Korchuganova v. Russia, No. 75039/01, § 63, 8 June 2006).
90. Accordingly, the Court finds that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must therefore be declared inadmissible.
(b) Detention between 4 and 16 August 2004
91. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They submitted that he had not lodged an application for supervisory review of the lawfulness of his detention between 4 and 16 August 2004 when the relevant changes had been introduced in domestic practice (see paragraph 70 above). They maintained that the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the relevant law had been adjusted to prevent similar breaches in future and influenced the subsequent practice of the
> 1 2 3 ... 26 27 28 ... 33 34 35
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
