fact that the prison administration had not received the decision of 31 March 2005 of the Presidium of the Supreme Court until a week later and so were not liable for the additional period the applicant had spent in prison. On 4 July 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia upheld that judgment on appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law
11. Article 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides that everyone shall have the right to freedom and personal inviolability. Arrest, detention and keeping in custody shall be permissible only under a court order. A person may not be detained for more than 48 hours without a court order.
12. In accordance with article 408 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation a supervisory review ruling under which a convicted person shall be subject to release from custody shall be executed to that extent immediately, if the convicted person is attending the supervisory review proceedings.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
13. The applicant complained that the period he had spent in detention had exceeded his final prison sentence by twenty-three days. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
..."
A. Admissibility
14. The Court considers that the applicant's 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.
B. Merits
15. The applicant maintained that following the supervisory-review decision to reduce his sentence to two years' imprisonment, his sentence had come to an end on 15 March 2005. However, he was only released on 7 April 2005. Thus, he considered that the excess period of imprisonment was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention.
16. The Government pointed out that according to domestic law the applicant should have been released immediately following the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of 31 March 2005. Thus, they accepted that the applicant's detention as from that date had no basis in domestic law and amounted to a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
17. The Court reiterates that by judgment of 25 May 2004, as upheld on appeal on 13 October 2004, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to two years and two months' imprisonment starting from 15 March 2003, the day of his arrest. Accordingly, the applicant would have served his sentence by 15 May 2005. It follows that until 31 March 2005, when the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia examined the case, the applicant's imprisonment was a lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court as required by Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It is true that as a result of the supervisory review on 31 March 2005 and the reduction of his sentence to two years' imprisonment, the applicant would have had served his sentence by 15 March 2005. Nevertheless, this subsequent development did not, in the Court's view, make the detention until 31 March 2005 unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention. As regards the remaining period until the applicant's release on 7 April 2005, the Government admitted that the applicant's detention had no basis in domestic law and amounted to a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Con
> 1 2 3
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
