xceeded a "reasonable time" (see paragraphs 32 and 38 above). Such an analysis should have been particularly prominent in the domestic decisions after the applicant had spent several years in custody; however the reasonable time test has never been applied.
96. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, No. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-...; Mamedova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX).
97. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to address his specific situation or consider alternative "preventive measures" and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which, although "relevant", cannot be regarded as "sufficient" to justify its duration of more than six years. In these circumstances it will not be necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with "special diligence". However, the Court will address the Government's argument that the complexity of the applicant's case accounted for the length of the applicant's detention. It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime and involving numerous defendants the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, {Laszkiewicz} v. Poland, No. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008). However, it has already found, in similar circumstances, that the complexity of the case, the number or the conduct of the defendants could not justify more than five years' detention pending investigation and trial (see Erdem v. Germany, No. 38321/97, § 46, ECHR 2001-VII).
98. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
99. The applicant further complained that he had been refused access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for an extension of his detention and that his appeal of 14 April 2005 had never been examined by the Supreme Court. The Court considers that those complaints fall to be examined under Article 5 § 4, which provides:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. Admissibility
1. The alleged refusal of access to the materials
100. The Government submitted that the prosecutor's requests for extension had been based exclusively on the materials from the criminal case-file. During the investigation the applicant had received copies of all materials added to the file, he had studied the entire file after the investigation had been completed and during the trial it had been open to him to request additional access to the file. However, no such requests were submitted by the applicant or his counsel.
101. The applicant maintained his claims.
102. The Court reiterates that arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bear
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16 ... 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
