ants' complaints concerning the detention orders issued between 10 July and 8 October 2003 must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Belov v. Russia, No. 22053/02, §74, 3 July 2008 and Matyush v. Russia, No. 14850/03, § 63, 9 December 2008).
40. The Court further notes that the complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the applicants' detention from 5 June to 10 July 2003 and from 8 October 2003 to 9 January 2004 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
41. The Court reiterates that the expressions "lawful" and "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. However, the "lawfulness" of detention under domestic law is not always the decisive element. The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion.
42. The Court must moreover ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein. On this last point, the Court stresses that, where deprivation of liberty is concerned, it is particularly important that the general principle of legal certainty be satisfied. It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see {Jecius} v. Lithuania, No. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, No. 28358/95, §§ 50 - 52, ECHR 2000-III).
(b) Application of the general principles to the present case
i. The applicants' detention from 5 June to 10 July 2003
43. The Court notes that on 5 June 2003 the Ryazan Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 April 2003, by which the applicants had been convicted, and ordered that they should remain in custody. On 10 July 2003 the Sasovo District Court again extended the applicants' detention.
44. The Court observes that on 5 June 2003 the Ryazan Regional Court gave no reasons for its decision to remand the applicants in custody. It also did not set a time-limit for the continued detention or for a periodic review of the preventive measure. Leaving aside the concurrent developments in the applicants' case, it transpires that for more than a month the applicants remained in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds for their detention from 5 June to 10 July 2003, when the District Court re-examined the detention matter.
45. The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, No. 2708/02, §§ 95 - 100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, No. 65734/01, §§ 65 - 70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 8 - 83, 3 July 2008). In particular, the Court has held that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see also Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/0
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
