>
137. The Government submitted that the hearings scheduled between 7 November 2007 and 11 February 2008 had been adjourned due to the applicant's illness. However, that fact had not barred him from lodging an application for release. It had been open to him to send such an application by mail or to apply to a court through his counsel.
138. The applicant maintained his claims.
139. The Court observes that the applicant did not allege that it had been legally impossible for him to lodge an application for release during the trial. Indeed, domestic law provided for a possibility to apply for release, required the trial court to examine the application and gave it power to discontinue the detention if it was no longer necessary (see paragraphs 87 and 88 above). The thrust of the applicant's complaint was directed against the alleged practical impossibility of lodging an application for release in the particular circumstances of his case, due to the fact that no hearing was held between 7 November 2007 and 11 February 2008. The Court is, however, not convinced by the applicant's allegation. It transpires from the documents in the case file that counsel for the applicant lodged an application for release on 20 December 2007 and that it was examined by the trial court on the same day (see paragraph 39 above). There is no evidence that the applicant or his counsel lodged or attempted to lodge other applications which remained unexamined.
140. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. Speediness of review
141. The Court notes that the complaint about the delay in the examination of the appeal against the detention order of 9 August 2007 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
142. The Government submitted that the applicant's appeal had been examined within the time-limit established by Article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 89 above).
143. The applicant maintained his claims.
144. The Court notes that the appeal proceedings against the detention order of 9 August 2007 lasted fifty days. The applicant's appeal submissions were received by the City Court on 14 August 2007. The City Court obtained comments from the investigator and forwarded the appeal submissions and the comments to the Supreme Court, which received them on 5 September 2007. However, it was not until a month later, on 4 October 2007, that the Supreme Court examined the appeal (see paragraphs 35 and 36 above). The Government did not provide any explanation for the delay. The Court considers that that delay, which was attributable to the authorities, cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 (compare, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, No. 29462/95, §§ 85 - 86, ECHR 2000-XII, where the review proceedings, which lasted twenty-three days, were found not to be "speedy"; and Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six, and twenty-nine days).
145. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention
146. The applicant further complained that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation for the violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial and his right to have the lawfulness of his detention examined speedily. He relied on Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
"Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detenti
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20 ... 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
