Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Кокошкина (Kokoshkina) против России» [англ.]

ent in detention.
64. The Court concludes that by keeping the applicant in overcrowded cells the domestic authorities subjected her to inhuman and degrading treatment. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility No. IZ-50/3.

II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

65. The applicant complained of a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time and alleged that detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. She relied on 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. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."

A. Admissibility

66. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the period of her detention before 24 June 2007. In their opinion, the Court had competence to examine the applicant's detention only with regard to the six months preceding the submission of her application form. The Government further claimed that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 § 3. On 7 May 2008 the Supreme Court had found that the length of her detention had been excessive and ordered her release. The alleged violation of her rights had been thereby redressed. Following her release the applicant could have made a civil claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from unlawful detention.
67. The applicant submitted that there was no basis in the Court's case-law for the Government's claim that her detention should be divided into separate periods for the purposes of verifying compliance with the six-month rule. She further argued that her release had not deprived her of her victim status. The Supreme Court had only found that the extension order of 17 March 2008 had been poorly reasoned and unjustified. The decision of 7 May 2008 had not contained any acknowledgement of a violation of the applicant's rights during the preceding months of her detention. In the absence of such acknowledgment, a civil action for damages had not had any prospects of success.
68. The Court considers that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his or her detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, No. 27561/02, §§ 29 and 37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)). Following her placement in custody on 3 October 2006 the applicant remained continuously in detention until 7 May 2008. The Court therefore finds that it has competence to examine the entire period of her detention and dismisses the Government's objection as to non-compliance with the six-month rule.
69. The Court further reiterates that "a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (see, for example, Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], No. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). It observes that on 7 May 2008 the Supreme Court ordered the applicant's release on the ground that her further detention would be unjustified. It did not however acknowledge that her detention during the preceding period had been founded on insufficient reasons or had exceeded a reasonable time. The decision of 7 May 2008 cannot therefore



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 14 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet