terfered with the investigation or continued his unlawful activities and that those circumstances had remained unchanged during the whole period of his pre-trial detention. The Government considered that the applicant's detention had been founded on "relevant and sufficient" reasons. They also pointed out that the applicant had not appealed against several decisions on the extension of his detention.
105. The applicant maintained his claims. He also emphasised that his co-accused had not been placed in custody.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
106. The Court notes the Government's assertion that the applicant did not appeal against several decisions on the extension of his detention and assumes that the Government have claimed non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in this connection.
107. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule requiring domestic remedies to be exhausted is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before those allegations are submitted to the Court. In the context of an alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, this rule requires that the applicant give the domestic authorities an opportunity to consider whether his right to trial within a reasonable time has been respected and whether there exist relevant and sufficient grounds continuing to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, No. 7649/02, § 35, 14 December 2006).
108. The Court considers that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, No. 27561/02, §§ 29 and 37, ECHR 2007-...). Following his placement in custody on 4 April 2004 the applicant continuously remained in detention. It is not disputed that he did not lodge appeals against the extension orders issued before 17 January 2005. He did, however, appeal to the regional court against the subsequent extension orders, referring, in particular, to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. He thereby gave an opportunity to the regional court to consider whether his detention was compatible with his Convention right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. Indeed, the regional court had to assess the necessity of further extensions in the light of the entire preceding period of detention, taking into account how much time had already been spent in custody. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies and rejects the Government's objection.
109. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
110. The Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention. However after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, §§ 152 - 53, ECHR 2000-IV).
111. The presumption is in favour of release. As the Court has consistently held, the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities
> 1 2 3 ... 29 30 31 ... 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
