0, §§ 70 - 71, 2 March 2006, and {Stasaitis} v. Lithuania, No. 47679/99, § 67, 21 March 2002). Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific time-limit would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X).
46. The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It considers that the decision of 5 June 2003 did not comply with the requirements of clarity, foreseeability and protection from arbitrariness, which together constitute the essential elements of the "lawfulness" of detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 1.
47. The Court therefore considers that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicants' detention from 5 June to 10 July 2003.
ii. The applicants' detention from 8 October 2003 to 9 January 2004
48. The Court observes that the applicants' detention during the period from 8 October 2003 to 9 January 2004 was authorised by the District Court on the grounds that the charges against them were serious, that they were liable to obstruct the course of justice and that it was necessary to complete the expert examination.
49. The Court reiterates that the trial court's decision to maintain a custodial measure would not breach Article 5 § 1 provided that the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction, had power to make an appropriate order, and had given reasons for its decision to maintain the custodial measure, for which it had also set a time-limit (see Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 152 - 153; Korchuganova v. Russia, No. 75039/01, § 62, 8 June 2006; and Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, No. 28957/02, §§ 41 - 46, 24 May 2007).
50. The trial court acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the decision of 8 October 2003 and there is nothing to suggest that it was invalid or unlawful under domestic law in so far as it authorised the applicants' detention for the subsequent period. Nor has it been claimed that that decision was otherwise incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1, the question of the sufficiency and relevance of the grounds relied on being analysed below in the context of compliance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
51. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of the detention order issued on 8 October 2003.
3. Summary of the findings
52. The Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicants' detention from 5 June to 10 July 2003.
53. The Court has found no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicants' detention between 8 October 2003 and 9 January 2004.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
54. The applicants complained that their detention had been excessively long. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial..."
A. Submissions by the parties
55. The Government submitted that the length of the applicants' detention had not been excessive. It was necessitated by the seriousness of the charge against the applicants and the likelihood that they would try to influence witnesses. In the Government's opinion, there were "no grounds for the applicants' r
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 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
