domestic courts. The Government raised this issue for the first time in their second set of observations on the present application, which, according to the procedure before the Court, were not commented upon by the applicant.
92. The Court notes at the outset that, in cases where admissibility issues are being decided upon at a separate stage of proceedings, objections regarding alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be raised before the admissibility of the application is considered, otherwise there will be estoppel (see, among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], No. 31195/96, § 44, ECHR 1999-II; and Alexov v. Bulgaria, No. 54578/00, § 152, 22 May 2008). However, it points out that it had decided to examine the merits of the present application at the same time as its admissibility (see paragraph 3 above). The Court considers that in principle a question might arise as to whether there has been estoppel owing to the Government's failure to invoke this objection in the first set of their observations, which are to be commented on by the applicant, in a case in which the joint procedure provided for by Article 29 § 3 of the Convention has been applied. However, it does not deem it necessary to examine this issue since the Government's objection should be rejected for the following reasons.
93. The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; and Mifsud v. France (dec.), No. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII). The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
94. In the present case the Government vaguely asserted that the applicant could have applied for supervisory review of the allegedly unlawful period of his detention that commenced on 4 August 2004. The Court reiterates that, according to its constant practice, an application for supervisory review is not a remedy to be used for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), No. 31697/03, 29 January 2004; and Shulepov v. Russia, No. 15435/03, § 23, 26 June 2008). Given that the Government did not specify how the remedy referred to could have provided the applicant with adequate redress for the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1, the Court finds that the Government failed to substantiate their claim that it was effective (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, No. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004; and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), No. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
95. Therefore, the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
96. The Court further notes that this part of the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
97. The Court observes that on 4 August 2004, that is, one day before the district court received the case file from the prosecutor, the term of the applicant's detention established by the decision of 2 July 2004 had expired. Nonetheless, the district court examined the issue of whether the applicant should remain in custody only on 16 August 2004, that is, twelve days later. The question arises whether during these twelve days the applicant's detention was "lawful" within the meaning of Articl
> 1 2 3 ... 27 28 29 ... 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
