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

on in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation."

A. Admissibility

147. The Court 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.

B. Merits

148. The Government submitted that Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code provided for the right to compensation for unlawful detention. The applicant had never applied for such compensation. Moreover, the appeal courts had upheld all the extension orders issued in respect of him as lawful.
149. The applicant maintained his complaint.
150. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Fedotov v. Russia, No. 5140/02, § 83, 25 October 2005, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], No. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X).
151. In the present case the Court has found a violation of paragraph 3 of Article 5 in that the duration of the applicant's detention was not based on "relevant and sufficient" reasons. It has also found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in that the applicant's appeal against the detention order of 9 August 2007 was not examined speedily. It must therefore establish whether or not the applicant had an enforceable right to compensation for the breach of Article 5.
152. The Court observes that, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code (see paragraphs 90 and 91 above), an award in respect of pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage may be made against the State only if the detention is found to have been unlawful in the domestic proceedings. In the present case, however, the appeal courts upheld the lawfulness of the detention and extension orders and the applicant therefore had no grounds to claim compensation.
153. Furthermore, the Court notes that the provisions invoked by the Government do not provide for State liability for detention which was not based on "relevant and sufficient" reasons or for a delay in examination of an appeal against an extension order. This state of Russian law precludes any legal possibility for an applicant to receive compensation for detention effected in breach of Article 5 §§ 3 or 4 of the Convention (see Korshunov v. Russia, No. 38971/06, § 62, 25 October 2007, and Govorushko v. Russia, No. 42940/06, § 60, 25 October 2007).
154. Thus, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an enforceable right to compensation for his detention found to be in violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
155. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.

V. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

156. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides:
"In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal..."
157. The Government submitted that the applicant had not complained about the excessive length of the proceedings to the president of the court, to the judicial qualifications board or to the prosecutor's office. Nor had he applied to a court for compensation. He had not therefore exhausted domestic remedies. The complaint was moreover premature, as the proceedings were still pending.
158. The Gov



> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21 ... 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet