Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6


It falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 this end they must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions dismissing the applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Labita, cited above, § 152).

173. The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX). Where the law Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 provides for a presumption in respect of factors relevant to the grounds for continued detention, the existence of the concrete facts outweighing the rule of respect for individual liberty must be convincingly Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 demonstrated (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, No. 33977/96, § 84 in fine, 26 July 2001).

174. The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (Labita Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6, cited above, § 153).

(b) Application of the principles to the present case

175. The applicant's detention on remand lasted from 22 January 1999, when he was taken in custody, to 28 May 2004, when he was released. The Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 total duration of the detention thus amounted to five years, four months and six days. However, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that in the periods from 8 August Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 2001 to 9 January 2002 and from 13 March 2002 to 4 December 2002 the applicant's detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

176. The Court accepts that the applicant's detention may initially have been warranted by Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in drug-trafficking. As noted in the District Court's decision of 28 December 1999, at that stage of the proceedings the need to ensure Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the proper conduct of the investigation and to prevent the applicant from absconding - having regard to his foreign nationality and permanent residence outside Russia - could justify keeping him in custody.

177. However, with Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the passage of time those grounds inevitably became less and less relevant. Accordingly, the domestic authorities were under an obligation to analyse the applicant's personal situation in greater detail and Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 to give specific reasons for holding him in custody.

The Government submitted that the courts had gauged the applicant's potential to abscond by reference to his foreign nationality and lack of permanent Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 residence in Russia. However, contrary to the Government's submission, after the case had been sent for trial for the first time in June 2000, these particular reasons were not cited in any Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 valid extension order.

178. The Court further notes that at no point in the proceedings did the domestic authorities consider whether the length of the applicant's detention had exceeded a "reasonable Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 time". Such an analysis should have been particularly prominent in the domestic decisions after the applicant had spent more than two years in custody and all the detention periods permitted by the domestic law Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 had expired (see paragraphs 156 et seq. above).

179. After the trial started, the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention seven times. The first three extensions were subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court on Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the ground that they had been given by the incomplete bench. All the decisions cited the gravity of the charges as the main ground for the continued detention. The two most Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 recent decisions additionally mentioned "sufficient reasons to believe that the defendants would abscond".

Moreover, five decisions - dated between 18 November 2002 and 28 August 2003 - referred to the need "to secure... the enforcement of the conviction Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6". The Court notes that this ground for detention is only provided for in Article 5 § 1 (a) which governs detention of a person "after conviction by a competent court". However, in the present case the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 applicant had not been convicted and the domestic courts' reliance on that ground amounted to a prejudgment of the merits of the case, leaving a conviction as the only possible Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 outcome of the trial.

180. The Court accepts that the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding. In view of the seriousness of Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the accusation against the applicant the authorities could reasonably consider that such an initial risk was established. However, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand (see Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, No. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, No. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).

This is particularly true in cases Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6, such as the present one, where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - was determined by the prosecution without judicial review of the issue whether the evidence Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 that had been obtained supported a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the alleged offence. Indeed, the Court observes that the applicant was only released from custody after the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 prosecution had applied to his acts a different characterisation in law. Further, less than a month after his release the prosecution decided to drop most of the charges and the trial court acquitted Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the applicant of those that remained.

181. As regards the existence of a risk of absconding, the Court reiterates that such a danger cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 severity of the sentence faced. It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Panchenko, cited above, § 106; Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A No. 207, § 43). In the present case the decisions of the domestic authorities gave Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 no reasons why, notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the applicant in support of his applications for release, they considered the risk of his absconding to be decisive. The domestic decisions Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 merely hinted at the existence of "sufficient grounds to believe that the defendants would abscond", without saying what those grounds actually were. The Court finds that the existence of such Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 a risk was not established.

182. The Court finally observes that during the entire period of the applicant's detention on remand, the authorities did not consider the possibility of ensuring his presence at trial by Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the use of other "preventive measures" - such as conditional bail or an undertaking not to leave the town - which are expressly provided for by Russian law to secure the proper Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 conduct of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 77 above).

183. In that context, the Court would emphasise that under Article 5 § 3 the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial when deciding whether Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 a person should be released or detained. Indeed, the provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, No. 55939/00, § 64 in fine, 15 February 2005; {Jablonski} v. Poland, No. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).

184. Given that the applicant's trial would Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 not be able to begin for a considerable time owing to events wholly unrelated to his conduct (see paragraph 188 below), the authorities should either have considered having recourse to such alternative measures Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 or at minimum explained in their decisions why such alternatives would not have ensured that the trial would follow its proper course. This failure is мейд all the more inexplicable by the fact that Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the new CCrP expressly requires the domestic courts to consider less restrictive "preventive measures" as an alternative to custody (see paragraph 80 in fine above).

185. In sum, the Court finds that the domestic Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 courts' decisions were not based on an analysis of all the pertinent facts. They took no notice of the arguments in favour of the applicant's release pending trial, such as his Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 deteriorating health and family connections in the region. It is of particular concern to the Court that the Russian authorities persistently used a stereotyped summary formula to justify extensions of Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 detention: the Regional Court reproduced the same one-paragraph text verbatim in five decisions between 18 November 2002 and 28 August 2003 and a slightly modified version in two later decisions.

186. Moreover, in the present case the Court observes Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 an established practice of issuing collective extension orders, that is judicial decisions extending the period of detention of several co-defendants at the same time, thereby ignoring the personal circumstances of individual Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 detainees. In the Court's view, this practice is incompatible, in itself, with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permitted the continued detention of Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 a group of persons (including the applicant), without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds or compliance with the "reasonable-time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6.

187. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to address concrete facts or consider alternative "preventive measures" and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities prolonged Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the applicant's detention on grounds which cannot be regarded as "relevant and sufficient".

188. That finding would, as a rule, absolve the Court from having to determine whether the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings. However, in the present case the Court cannot but note that delays in the proceedings were more than once occasioned by failings on the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 part of the authorities. Thus, the trial court was unable to begin the examination of the case in earnest from June 2000 to April 2001 because the prosecution persistently failed to arrange for Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 a translation of the bill of indictment into Tajik, the language spoken by seven of the defendants. After that defect had been rectified, the domestic courts were unable to agree whether other Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 procedural shortcomings had irreparably impaired the defence rights and this led to a further delay from March to September 2002. Furthermore, on each occasion the file was returned to the Regional Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 Court, it took a considerable amount of time - ranging from one and a half to four months - merely to fix the hearing date. Having regard to these circumstances, the Court considers that the domestic Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 authorities failed to display "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings.

189. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.


III. Alleged violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention


190. The Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he had not been permitted to take part in the appeal hearings and that the courts had not pronounced "speedily" on the lawfulness Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of his detention. Article 5 § 4 reads as follows:


КонсультантПлюс: примечание.

Нумерация разделов дана в согласовании с источником опубликования.


"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."


1. The parties' submissions


191. As regards the proceedings on Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 his appeal against the Regional Court's decision 28 April 2001, the applicant contended that it had taken the Supreme Court seventy-two days to fix the first appeal hearing, which was by Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 no means a "speedy" review. After the hearing of 9 July 2001 had had to be adjourned, the next hearing was not fixed until almost a month later, which could not be considered sufficiently Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 "speedy" either. The applicant claimed that the Supreme Court's persistent refusals to permit his attendance at the appeal hearing had been in breach of the decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court on his complaints Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 (see paragraphs 56 and 57 above).

192. As regards the "speediness" of the review, the Government submitted that there had been "objective reasons" for the length of the proceedings, such as the failure Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of the applicant's counsel to attend hearings, his repeated requests for adjournments and his appeals to the higher court. As to the applicant's presence before the appeal court, the refusal to permit Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the applicant's attendance had been consistent with Article 335 of the CCrP, which restricted the right to appear before the appeal court to persons who had been convicted or Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 acquitted.


2. The Court's assessment


(a) Principles established in the Court's case-law

193. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4, in guaranteeing to persons arrested or detained a right to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful. Although it does Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention, a State which institutes such a system must Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A No. 273-B, § 28; Toth v. Austria, judgment of 12 December Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 1991, Series A No. 224, § 84). The requirement that a decision be given "speedily" is undeniably one such guarantee; while one year per instance may be a rough rule of thumb in Article 6 § 1 cases, Article Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 5 § 4, concerning issues of liberty, requires particular expedition (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, No. 50272/99, § 79, ECHR 2003-IV). In that context, the Court also observes that there is a special need for a swift Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 decision determining the lawfulness of detention in cases where a trial is pending because the defendant should benefit fully from the principle of the presumption of innocence (see {Ilowiecki} v. Poland, No. 27504/95, § 76, 4 October Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 2001).

(b) Appeal against the judicial decision of 28 April 2001

194. The Court notes that on 4 and 17 May 2001 the applicant appealed against the Regional Court's decision of 28 April 2001 extending his detention on remand. After that Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 decision had been quashed on appeal and the matter had been reconsidered by the Regional Court the Supreme Court gave a final decision on 23 January 2003. In these proceedings the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 Supreme Court twice refused the applicant leave to appear before it; the applicant's lawyer was, however, present.

195. The Court notes that the proceedings that followed the applicant's appeal against the Regional Court Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6's decision of 28 April 2001 lasted more than one year and eight months until the final decision of the Supreme Court. Even though the Government offered an explanation for some of the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 delays, they did not explain, for example, why it had taken the Supreme Court more than five months to examine the appeal against the Regional Court's second decision, whereas, under Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 domestic law, any appeal should have been examined within two months maximum (see paragraph 96 above). The Government did not indicate the reasons for the Supreme Court's failure to abide by that time-limit Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6.

In any event, the Court considers that no exceptional circumstances could justify such inordinate delays in proceedings concerning the lawfulness of detention.

196. The Court finds therefore that there has been a violation Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings on the applicant's appeal against the Regional Court's decision of 28 April 2001. In the light of Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 this finding, the Court does need not to determine whether the refusal of leave to appear also entailed a violation of Article 5 § 4.

(c) Application for release of 4 September 2001

197. The Court notes that, once Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the case was sent for trial on 4 September 2001, the applicant immediately lodged an application for release, which the Regional Court examined and rejected on 9 January 2002.

198. The Court observes that under the domestic law Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 in force at the time the trial court was required to decide an application for release within fourteen days after receipt of the case file (Articles 223 and 223.1 of the old CCrP, see Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 paragraphs 91 and 94 above). The Government did not explain why that provision had not been complied with in the applicant's case.

The Court considers that a period of 125 days cannot be considered Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially as the legal basis for the applicant's detention had shifted.

199. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure to examine the applicant's application for release of 4 September 2001 "speedily".

(d) Appeals against the judicial decision of 9 January 2002

200. The Court notes that on Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 9 January 2002 the trial court extended the applicant's detention pending trial. On 5 February 2002 it adjourned the hearing because of the absence of three defendants. On 11 and 15 February 2002 the applicant lodged appeals against Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 these decisions and the notice of appeal of 15 February repeated the points that had been raised in the notice of appeal dated 11 February.

201. The applicant contended, and this was not contested by Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the respondent Government, that the registry of the Regional Court had omitted to send his notices of appeal to the Supreme Court.

202. The Court finds therefore a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 on account of the manifest failure of the domestic authorities to examine the applicant's appeals against the extension order of 9 January 2002.

(e) Appeal against the judicial decision of 13 March Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 2002

203. The Court notes that on 29 April 2002 the applicant appealed against the trial court's decision of 13 March 2002 that had resulted in his detention being extended. The appeal was not examined by the Supreme Court Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 until 12 September 2002. The Supreme Court refused the applicant's request for leave to appear in person.

204. For the same reasons as above, the Court considers that a period of 134 days was incompatible with Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and that there has been a violation of that provision.

(f) Appeals against the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002

205. The Court notes that on Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 22 and 26 November and 5 December 2002 the applicant appealed against the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002 extending his pre-trial detention. He initially alleged that the Supreme Court had chosen not to Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 examine his appeals. On 21 March 2005, after the case had been declared admissible, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002 on procedural grounds. However, the applicant maintained that the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 Supreme Court's order quashing the decision of 4 December 2002 was мейд on his co-defendants' appeals only, not his appeal of 5 December 2002.

206. The Court considers, firstly, that the examination of an appeal more Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 than two years after it was lodged obviously failed to meet the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4. It need not, however, determine whether the applicant's appeal of 5 December 2002 was considered because the Supreme Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 Court expressly refused to take cognisance of any arguments concerning the substantive aspects of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention or to remit that matter for consideration by a lower Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 court. Such a refusal clearly infringed the applicant's right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention would be decided.

207. The Court finds that there has been a violation of Article Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure to consider the substance of the applicant's appeals against the judicial decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002.


3. Summary of the findings


208. The Court Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 has found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of:

- the length of proceedings on the applicant's appeal against the decision of 28 April 2001;

- the failure to examine "speedily" his Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 application for release of 4 September 2001 and his appeal against the decision of 13 March 2002;

- the failure to examine his appeals against the extension order of 9 January 2002;

- the failure to consider the merits of his Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 appeals against the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002.


IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention


209. The Court, of its own motion, raised the question whether the length of the criminal proceedings against the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 applicant was compatible with the "reasonable-time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in the relevant part, as follows:

"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."


1. The parties' submissions


210. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings had been reasonable, having regard to the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 volume of the case (22 binders), the large number of defendants (21) and witnesses (over 100), the use of interpreters, consistent failures by the defendants' counsel, including the applicant's lawyer, to attend hearings and their repeated Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 requests for adjournments on various grounds.

211. The applicant contended that only 12 of the binders concerned the merits of the charges, while the others only included procedural documents. The investigators had "artificially inflated" the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 volume of the case-file because they had charged all the defendants with serious criminal offences without a sufficient factual basis. In the applicant's view, the prosecution's Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 decision to drop a number of the charges during the final pleadings and his acquittal by the court of the remainder confirmed that allegation. Contrary to the Government's submissions, the actual Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 number of witnesses was 61, each of whom was called to the witness stand for fifteen minutes only. As to the interpreters, it was precisely because of the domestic authorities' failure to make interpretation available in Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 good time that it had become necessary to return the case for an additional investigation with the resultant delay in the proceedings. As to the lawyers' conduct, the applicant Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 indicated that on extremely rare occasions the case had been adjourned due to his lawyer's absence and, in any event, he had consented to the continuation of the proceedings without his Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 lawyer's presence.

212. The applicant submitted that the domestic authorities' conduct had caused the most significant delays in the proceedings: copies of procedural decisions had been handed over to the defendants several weeks after the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 expiry of the time-limits. It had taken the trial court 96 days to fix the first hearing and the interval between hearings had sometimes been as long as 27 days. The Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 time it had taken for the case file to be transferred between the Vladimir Regional Court and the Supreme Court was excessive, ranging from 25 to 40 days. Finally, between 10 July 2003 and 15 March Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 2004 the trial could have fixed a tighter schedule of hearings so as to avoid delays that had ranged from two to ten days.


2. The Court's assessment


213. The period to be taken into consideration in the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 present case began on 22 January 1999 when the applicant was taken into custody. It ended on 21 March 2005 when the Supreme Court handed down the appeal decisions. The proceedings thus lasted six years Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 and two months.

214. The Court acknowledges that the case was of a certain complexity as it concerned a substantial number of drug-related offences allegedly committed by more than twenty defendants. The Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 need to use interpreters to and from the Uzbek and Tajik languages was a further complicating factor. However, in the Court's view, the complexity of the case does not suffice, in Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 itself, to account for the length of the proceedings.

215. The Government's submissions about the persistent absence of counsel were not sufficiently detailed - they omitted to indicate the dates of absences Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 or, at least, the number of times counsel had been absent - or supported by evidence, such as excerpts from the trial record. The Court considers therefore that their allegation that the delays Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 were mainly attributable to the applicant's own conduct has not been мейд out.

216. On the other хэнд, the Court finds that the main cause of the delays was the conduct Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of the domestic authorities: on three occasions the trial court had to return the case to the pre-trial stage to enable the investigators to remedy the breaches of the defendants' rights Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6, such as the absence of translation, which мейд consideration of the merits impossible. In this context the Court refers to its finding under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 to act with the necessary diligence in conducting the applicant's proceedings (see paragraph 188 above). That finding is likewise valid in respect of the length of the criminal proceedings as such.

217. Having regard to the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 foregoing, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings did not satisfy the "reasonable-time" requirement. Accordingly, there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.


V. Application Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of Article 41 of the Convention


218. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be мейд, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."


A. Pecuniary damage


219. The applicant claimed 14,700,000 US dollars (USD Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6) representing capital losses during the period he was detained. He submitted that, as a result of the unlawful seizure of his company's documents and seal by the Russian law-enforcement Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 authorities, he had lost control of his business and had been exposed to substantial financial liabilities as his company had defaulted on a bank loan. The applicant also claimed USD 6,938.10 for loss of earnings Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 during five years of detention.

220. The Government contested the existence of a causal link between the alleged violations and the loss of capital, as the decision to prefer criminal charges against the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 applicant was not the subject of the Court's review in the present case. They also exposed calculation errors in the applicant's claims.

221. The Court shares the Government's view that Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 there has been no causal link between the violations found and the claimed pecuniary damage (see {Stasaitis}, cited above, § 96; {Jecius}, cited above, § 106). Consequently, it finds no reason to award the applicant any sum Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 under this head.


B. Non-pecuniary damage


222. The applicant sought compensation in the sum of 50,000 euros (EUR) or such other sum as the Court considered just.

223. The Government considered that a finding Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They also submitted that, owing to his acquittal, the applicant was entitled to redress at the domestic level.

224. The Court notes that it Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 has found a combination of particularly grievous violations in the present case. The applicant, who was never convicted of any criminal offence, spent more than five years in custody, in inhuman and degrading Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 conditions and was frequently transported to and from the courthouse in the conditions which were likewise inhuman and degrading. His detention was unlawful for more than a year and, when "lawful Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6", was not based on sufficient grounds. Finally, on various occasions he was denied the right to have the lawfulness of his detention examined speedily. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the entire amount claimed by the applicant under Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.


C. Costs and expenses


225. The applicant claimed EUR 2,000 for his representation by Mr Bagryanskiy, EUR 2,000 for his representation by Ms Gulakova Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 and a further 1,000 British pounds (GBP) for the preparation of just-satisfaction claims by Mr Bowring.

226. The Government submitted that the applicant had been represented in the proceedings before the Court Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 by Mr Bagryanskiy, Mr Ovchinnikov and Ms Moskalenko. The case file does not contain any documents signed by either Ms Gulakova or Mr Bowring. In any event, they considered the amounts Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 claimed by the applicant excessive.

227. The Court notes, firstly, that the applicant was granted EUR 701 in legal aid for his representation by Mr Bagryanskiy. As the applicant did not justify having incurred any expenses Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 exceeding that amount, the Court makes no award under this head. As regards the preparation of the claim for just satisfaction, the Court notes that on 2 June 2005 the President refused Ms Gulakova Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6's request for leave to act on behalf of the applicant. It is true that Mr Bowring's name was printed at the bottom of the claims, however, he did not sign the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 claims and there is no indication that the applicant has paid any sums to Mr Bowring. Accordingly, the Court makes no award in respect of legal costs and expenses.


D. Default Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 interest


228. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.


^ FOR THESE Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY


1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility No. OD-1/T-2 ("Vladimirskiy Tsentral");

2. Holds Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's transport from the remand facility to the courthouse and back;

3. Holds Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand from 4 May to 8 August 2001 and from 9 January to 13 March 2002;

4. Holds that there has Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand from 8 August 2001 to 9 January 2002 and from 13 March 2002 to 4 December 2002;

5. Holds that there Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;

6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the length of proceedings on the applicant's appeal against the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 decision of 28 April 2001, on his application for release of 4 September 2001, and on his appeal against the decision of 13 March 2002;

7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 as regards the failure to examine the merits of the applicant's appeals against the extension order of 9 January 2002 and against the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002;

8. Holds that there Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 has been a violation of the "reasonable-time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

9. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 50,000 (fifty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(b) that from the expiry Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 default period plus three percentage points;

10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.


Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 November 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and Европейский суд по правам человека четвертая секция дело "худоеров (khudoyorov) против российской федерации" - страница 6 3 of the Rules of Court.


Nicolas BRATZA

President


Michael O'BOYLE

Registrar

ex2-put-up-4-questions-of-different-types-general-special-disjunctive.html
ex2fill-in-the-gaps-with-the-words-given-in-brackets.html
ex4-on-the-basis-of-additional-information-prepare-a-written-essay.html