aced in an unfavourable position or sustained damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many authorities, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, No. 40825/98, § 67, 31 July 2008; Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, § 38, Series A No. 185-A; and Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 27, Series A No. 31).
66. The Court observes that all decisions extending the applicant's detention were stereotypically worded and in summary form. They did not describe in detail the applicant's personal situation. Although in one of the extension orders the Regional Court stated that it had taken into account "the defendants' characters", this statement was not accompanied by any description of the applicant's character or an explanation as to why it made his detention necessary (see paragraph 27 above). The domestic authorities' reluctance to devote proper attention to discussion of the applicant's personal situation is particularly manifest in the Regional Court's decisions of 20 and 27 April 2004, which gave no grounds whatsoever for the applicant's continued detention. The Regional Court only noted that "the defendants should remain in custody" (see paragraphs 16 and 17 above).
67. After the case had been submitted for trial in April 2004 the trial court issued collective detention orders using the same summary formula to extend the detention of six persons. The Court has already found that the practice of issuing collective detention orders without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each detainee is incompatible, in itself, with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Shcheglyuk, cited above, § 45; Korchuganova, cited above, § 76; and Dolgova v. Russia, No. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006). By extending the applicant's detention by means of collective detention orders the domestic authorities had no proper regard to his individual circumstances.
68. Lastly, the Court notes that the domestic authorities explicitly refused to consider whether the length of the applicant's detention had exceeded a "reasonable time" (see paragraphs 29 and 37 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.
69. 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, No. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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).
70. 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 five 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 or
> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24 25 ... 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
