ntinued detention on remand. The sufficiency and relevance of these grounds will be discussed below from the standpoint of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
60. It has not therefore been established that, in issuing the detention orders of 1 July and 24 September 2002, the City Court acted in bad faith, or that it neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly. The fact that certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful (see Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, No. 2708/02, § 93, 24 May 2007, and Khudoyorov, cited above, § 132, with further references).
61. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand from 1 July to 2 December 2002.
(ii) Applicant's detention from 2 December to 30 December 2002
62. The Court notes that on 2 December 2002 the Supreme Court, having quashed the City Court's decision of 24 September 2002, ordered a re-examination of the applicant's detention. On 15 December 2002, while the re-examination proceedings were still pending, the City Court extended the applicant's detention on remand from 30 December 2002 to 30 March 2003.
63. The Court further observes that on 11 March 2003 the St Petersburg City Court ex post facto authorised the applicant's detention from 1 July to 30 December 2002. It follows, therefore, that for almost a month from 2 December to 30 December 2002 there was no valid decision authorising the applicant's detention.
64. The Court considers that the decision of the St Petersburg City Court of 11 March 2003 did not constitute a "lawful" basis for the applicant's detention from 2 December to 30 December 2002. The Government did not indicate any domestic legal provision that permitted a decision to be taken authorising a period of detention retrospectively. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that any ex post facto authorisation of detention on remand is incompatible with the "right to security of person" as it is necessarily tainted with arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 142; Vladimir Solovyev, cited above, § 99; and Shukhardin v. Russia, No. 65734/01, § 69, 28 June 2007).
65. The Court therefore considers that there was a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand from 2 December to 30 December 2002.
(iii) Applicant's detention from 30 December 2002 to 30 April 2004
66. The Court observes that in the period from 30 December 2002 to 30 April 2004 the applicant's detention was extended by the St Petersburg City Court on six occasions.
67. 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... [and] had power to make an appropriate order" (see Korchuganova v. Russia, No. 75039/01, § 62, 8 June 2006).
68. In the present case the trial court acted within its powers in making the above decisions, and there is nothing to suggest that they were invalid or unlawful under domestic law. The question whether the reasons for the decisions were sufficient and relevant is analysed below in connection with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3.
69. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of the detention orders issued in the period from 30 December 2002 to 30 April 2004.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
70. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the duration of his pre-trial detention had been in breach of the reasonable-time requirement. Article 5 § 3 provides as follows:
"Ever
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
