8 June 2005 had ever been made available to the applicant or his counsel. It appears that the applicant had not learned about the appeal decision of 8 June 2005 until he received the Government's observations. Accordingly, the complaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month rule. The Government's objection is therefore dismissed.
108. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
109. The Government submitted that the appeal of 14 April 2005 had been examined by the Supreme Court within the time-limit established by Article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 57 above).
110. The applicant maintained his complaint.
111. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to persons detained a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland, No. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III). There is a special need for a swift decision determining the lawfulness of detention in cases where a trial is pending, as the defendant should benefit fully from the principle of the presumption of innocence (see {Ilowiecki} v. Poland, No. 27504/95, § 76, 4 October 2001).
112. In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), Article 5 § 4 requires that a hearing is held. The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A No. 318-B). Although Article 5 § 4 does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of applications for release from detention, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Ilijkov, cited above, § 103, and Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 84, Series A No. 224).
113. The applicant lodged his appeal against the extension order on 14 April 2005. It was examined and dismissed by the Supreme Court on 8 June 2005, that is fifty-five days later. The Court considers that this period cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 (see, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, No. 29462/95, §§ 85 - 86, ECHR 2000-XII, where the review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").
114. Further, the applicant and his counsel were absent from the appeal hearing of 8 June 2005, whereas the prosecutor was present. The Court is of the view that to ensure equality of arms it was necessary to give the applicant the opportunity to appear, either in person or through some form of representation, at the same time as the prosecutor so that he could reply to the latter's arguments (compare Kampanis, cited above, § 58). Given that counsel was not notified of the date of the appeal hearing and that the applicant, who was in custody, was not brought to the courtroom, the examination of the applicant's appeal on 8 June 2005 did not meet the "equality of arms" requirement of Article 5 § 4.
115. Finally, the Court notes that neither the applicant nor his counsel was informed about the outcome of the appeal proceedings or served with a copy of the decision of 8 June 2005. As a result, the applicant was left in uncertainty as to the fate of his appeal for many months and was deprived of an effective control of the lawfulness of his det
> 1 2 3 ... 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
