Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Алехин (Alekhin) против России» [англ.]

ntitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."

A. Admissibility

116. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the period after commencement of the judicial proceedings. The applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of that period as he had not appealed against the detention orders issued during the proceedings.
117. The Court first notes 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-... (extracts)). Following his placement in custody on 13 February 2006 the applicant remained continuously in detention until his conviction on 19 September 2008. Therefore, the Court will make a global assessment of the entire period of the applicant's detention in order to determine whether he exhausted domestic remedies.
118. Under the terms of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention the Court can only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law. The application of that rule must, however, make due allowance for the fact that it is being applied in the context of machinery for the protection of human rights that the Contracting Parties have agreed to establish. Accordingly, the Court has recognised that Article 35 § 1 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The rule is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically. In reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each case. This means, amongst other things, that the Court must take realistic account of the general legal and political context in which the remedies operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant (see Estrikh v. Latvia, No. 73819/01, §§ 92 and 94, 18 January 2007, with further references).
119. The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 71, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). However, applicants cannot reasonably be expected continually to make applications before the same body where previous such applications have failed (see NA. v. the United Kingdom, No. 25904/07, § 91, 17 July 2008).
120. The Court observes that the applicant appealed against the decision of 13 February 2006 to remand him in custody. He also appealed to the Supreme Court against the extension order of 9 August 2007. He thereby gave an opportunity to the Supreme Court to consider whether his detention was compatible with his Convention right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial.
121. After the case was sent for trial in October 2007, the applicant's detention was on several occasions extended by the Moskovskiy District Court. Appeal against the extension orders made by that court lay to the St Petersburg City Court, the same court that had previously extended the applicant's detention on 5 February, 7 June and 9 August 2007. Accordingly, the City Court had repeated opportunities to consider the applicant's circumstances, including his state of health, and to examine the arguments for release advanced by him. Indeed, on 7 June 2007 the City Court had an occasion to observe the applicant's condition when he was brought to the courtroom on a stretcher accompanied by a doctor and a signlanguage interpreter. However, it rejected the



> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 20 21 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet