CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 mai 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A7788FC { width:42.94pt; display:inline-block } .sD2F08BAA { width:176.3pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION     CASE OF VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA     (Application no. 2708/02)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   24 May 2007       FINAL     12/11/2007     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President,   Mr   L. Loucaides,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   A. Kovler,   Mr   K. Hajiyev,   Mr   D. Spielmann,   Mr   S.E. Jebens, judges, and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 3 May 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 2708/02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir Viktorovich Solovyev (“the applicant”), on 31 December 2001. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr A. Chumakov, a lawyer practising in Tyumen. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3 .     In his first letter lodged with the Court on 31 December 2001 the applicant argued that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation had not examined his complaints concerning the applicability of certain laws on criminal procedure. In his subsequent letters of 21 and 30 January and 30   June 2003 and 22 January 2004 he complained that his detention on remand after 1   July 2002 had been unlawful and extremely long, that he and/or his lawyer had not been called to hearings on 1 July, 1 October, 13   November, 15 December 2002 and 8 January 2003, that their appeals against the detention order of 1 July 2002 had not been examined and that the criminal proceedings against him were extremely long. On 14 June 2004 the applicant lodged with the Court an application form, restating his complaints from the letters and raising a number of new complaints relating to his detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against him. 4.     On 18 March 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Yekaterinburg in the Sverdlovsk Region. A.     Institution of criminal proceedings 7.     In May 1993 the bodies of three persons were found in a street of Yekaterinburg.     On 29 March 1994 the applicant was charged with two counts of manslaughter and unlawful possession of weapons. Ten days later a deputy prosecutor of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District of Yekaterinburg discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant because he was found to have acted in self-defence and the use of force had been justified. 8.     On 14 November 1997 the applicant was charged with having severely injured Mr M. 9.     In February 1998 the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor re-opened the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of manslaughter and arms possession and remitted the case for further investigation. On 17   November 1998 an investigator of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District prosecutor's office dropped two of the three charges. 10.     In December 1998 the two sets of criminal proceedings were joined and the applicant was issued with the bill of indictment. He was charged with one count of manslaughter, causing severe bodily injuries and unlawful restriction of liberty. B.     Trial proceedings 1.     Committal for trial and the applicant's arrest 11 .     On 1 February 1999 the applicant was committed for trial and on 1   December 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg listed the first hearing for 17 October 2000. 12.     At the hearing of 17 October 2000, to which the applicant's lawyer was not called, the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court authorised the applicant's arrest, reasoning as follows: “Mr Solovyev is charged with murder, intentional infliction of severe injuries... and unlawful confinement... Before the hearing they [the applicant and his co-defendant] unsuccessfully sought the removal of the presiding judge and influenced participants in the proceedings, including the victim, Mr M., who asked the court not to examine the case because the defendants had not committed any criminal offence against him. They also appealed against the decision by which a court hearing had been fixed. Mr Solovyev is charged with serious and especially serious criminal offences... When they [the applicant and his co-defendant] had been under a written undertaking not to leave the town, they had attempted to obstruct the thorough and full examination of the case. A prosecutor lodged a request in that connection; having regard to the above-mentioned considerations, the court finds it substantiated and authorises... Mr Solovyev's placement in custody.” The District Court listed the next hearing for 18   December 2000. The decision of 17 October 2000 was upheld on 9 November 2000 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. The applicant was taken into custody on 17   October 2000. 2.     Requests for removal of the bench; detention order of 1 March 2001 13.     At the hearing of 18 December 2000 the applicant and his lawyer sought the removal of the entire bench including the presiding judge. The District Court dismissed those requests and adjourned the proceedings until 1   March 2001 because the victim had come to the hearing in an inebriated state. On 9   February 2001 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld that decision. 14 .     On 1 March 2001 the presiding judge, in an interlocutory decision, extended the applicant's detention and excused himself from the proceedings because he felt offended by the conduct of the applicant's counsel. No reasons or time-limit for the extension were given. The judge noted that the decision was not amenable to appeal. 3.     Detention order of 17 April 2001 15 .     On 17 April 2001 a new presiding judge listed a hearing for 7   June 2001 and extended the applicant's detention, without citing any grounds or setting a time-limit. 16.     The applicant alleged that he had not received that decision. Nonetheless, he had appealed against it on 23 and 28 May 2001. 17.     On 18   July 2001 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision, without giving any reasons for the applicant's continued detention. 4.     Interlocutory decisions and the detention order of 7 June 2001 (a)     Rejection of a request for an additional investigative measure 18.     On 4 June 2001 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's request for an additional investigative measure. The applicant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 18   July 2001. (b)     Adjournment of the proceedings and detention order of 7 June 2001 19 .     On 7 June 2001 the applicant asked the District Court to adjourn the proceedings because his lawyer was on leave. The court acceded to his request, adjourned the proceedings and extended his detention on remand. No reasons or time-limit for the extension were given. 20.     The applicant appealed against the decision, claiming that it had not been given by a lawful tribunal. 21.     On 20 July 2001 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant was not taken to the appeal hearing. 5.     Detention order of 4 September 2001 (a)     Legal representation issues 22.     On 3 September 2001 Ms Sulina was appointed to act as the applicant's counsel. 23.     At the hearing held on the following day the applicant, assisted by Ms Sulina, asked the District Court to release him against a written undertaking not to leave the town and to replace Ms Sulina with Mr   Ratushniy and Ms Gagarina, representatives of a certain NGO.     The Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court dismissed his petition for release on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences and he did not admit his guilt. The District Court held that “there were no grounds to change the measure of restraint”. It refused the appointment of Mr   Ratushniy and Ms Gagarina because they had not produced written authority to act. 24.     On 5 September 2001 the applicant again asked the court to appoint Mr Ratushniy and Ms Gagarina. That hearing was postponed to allow the applicant and his co-defendant to find new lawyers. 25.     According to the applicant, on 11 September 2001 he submitted his statement of appeal against the decision of 4 September 2001 to the administration of the remand facility where he was being held. On 12   September 2001 he sent a letter by registered mail to the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. However, his appeal was never considered. 26.     The Government submitted that the applicant's co-defendant, but not the applicant, had appealed against the decision of 4 September 2001. 27.     On 5 September 2001 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court held that the applicant should pay 345 Russian roubles (RUR; approximately 13   euros (EUR)) in respect of certain legal fees. The applicant alleged that he had not been promptly informed about that decision and that he had only appealed against it on 6   November 2001. He claimed that his appeal had not been examined. (b)     Adjournment of the proceedings until 1 April 2002 28.     At the hearing of 17 December 2001 the applicant successfully petitioned for an adjournment because his lawyer had defaulted. The hearing was postponed until the following day. 29.     On 19 December 2001 the District Court, upon the applicant's request, adjourned the proceedings until 24 December 2001 to enable the applicant and his new lawyer to read the case file together. 30.     The subsequent hearings of 24 and 25 December 2001 were postponed because the lawyer for the applicant's co-defendant had defaulted. The proceedings were stayed until 1 April 2002. The applicant claimed that on 31 December 2001 he had appealed against the decisions of 24 and 25   December 2001, but his appeals were never examined. 6.     Detention order of 1 April 2002 31.     At the hearing of 1 April 2002 the applicant's lawyer asked the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court to remit the case for further investigation and release the applicant on bail or on a written undertaking not to leave the town. The District Court refused the requests, on the ground that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and did not admit his guilt. 32.     On 4 April 2002 the applicant's lawyer appealed against the decision of 1   April 2002, but his appeal was never considered. The Government submitted that on 26 July 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court had extended the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 1 April 2002. However, there was no evidence in the case file that such an appeal had, in fact, been lodged. 7.     Attempt to return the case for further investigation. Detention order of 27 May 2002 33 .     On 27 May 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court gave interlocutory decisions, whereby it dismissed the applicant's request for the bench to stand down, remitted the case for further investigation and extended his detention on remand. As regards the grounds for the extension, the District Court noted that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and that he did not admit his guilt and had threatened the victim. 34.     The applicant lodged an appeal. 35 .     On 17 July 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court for correction of procedural defects. The Regional Court held that in the course of the appeal hearing the applicant's lawyer had also complained that on 4 April 2002 he had lodged an appeal against the decision of the District Court of 1 April 2002. The lawyer had provided the Regional Court with a copy of his statement of appeal bearing a stamp of the District Court and showing that it had received the statement on 4   April 2002. The Regional Court instructed the District Court to investigate whether that statement had been lodged in accordance with the requirements established in law. 36.     On 21 August 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decisions of 27 May 2002 in the part concerning the request for the bench to stand down and the extension of the applicant's detention. However, it did not accept the District Court's view that the case was to be returned for further investigation and instructed it to examine the merits of the charges. The applicant's lawyer was not called to the hearing. 8.     Detention order of 1 July 2002 (period to 1 October 2002) 37.     On 1 July 2002 a new Code of Criminal Procedure became effective. 38.     On the same day the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002, holding that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and that he would not admit his guilt and had threatened the victim. The applicant and his lawyer were not called to the hearing. The representative of the prosecution authorities did not attend. 39.     The applicant appealed against the decision of 1 July 2002, also alleging that he had only received a copy of that decision on 4 July 2002. The applicant provided the Court with a copy of his statement of appeal. The document bore the stamp of the District Court indicating that the appeal was lodged on 12 July 2002. 40.     On 21 August 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court refused to examine the applicant's appeal against the decision of 1 July 2002 and remitted the matter to the District Court. The Regional Court held as follows: “In a decision [of 1 July 2002] Mr Solovyev's detention on remand was extended until 1 October 2002. Mr Solovyev lodged several appeals against that decision; [they] were lodged outside the time-limit established by the law. From the case file it cannot be established when Mr Solovyev learned about that decision. Moreover, his lawyer, Mr   Khaymin, participating in the appeal hearing,... has learnt about that decision for the first time and has expressed his wish to appeal against it ... In view of the foregoing, [the court] decides to stay the appeal proceedings, establish the date when Mr Solovyev was issued with the decision [of 1 July 2002], include the notification in the case file, invite him to apply for extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against that decision ..., accept an appeal from Mr   Khaymin, and subsequently fix an appeal hearing.” 41.     Two days later the Regional Court received an application from the applicant's lawyer seeking an extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 1 July 2002. According to the Government, there was no indication in the case file that the request had been examined. 9.     Detention order of 1 October 2002 (period to 1 January 2003) 42.     On 1 October 2002 the District Court extended the applicant's detention for three months, that is, until 1 January 2003. The court gave the same grounds for the extension as those in the detention orders of 27   May and 1   July 2002. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at the hearing. 43 .     On 13 November 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 1 October 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination by the District Court. The Regional Court reasoned that in breach of the rules of criminal procedure the District Court had not ensured the presence of the applicant and his lawyer at the hearing of 1   October 2002. It held that the applicant's detention “should remain unchanged” in the meantime, because it had not established any ground to release him. The applicant was not taken to the appeal hearing, even though he had sought leave to appear. His lawyer attended that hearing. 10.     Extension order of 20 November 2002 44.     On 20 November 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court listed a hearing for 17 December 2002 and extended the applicant's detention, without citing any grounds or setting a time-limit. The applicant and his lawyer were not called to the hearing. 45.     On 7 March 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 20 November 2002 because no procedural or substantive violations were established. 11.     Re-examination of the detention order of 1 October 2002 and trial hearings 46.     On 15 December 2002 the District Court re-examined the detention matter (which it had previously examined on 1 October 2002) and retrospectively extended the applicant's detention for three months, until 1   January 2003. It held that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that, if released, he could pervert the course of justice. A new lawyer, Mr Tselousov, and the applicant attended the hearing. 47.     The applicant and Mr Khaymin, his other lawyer, appealed against that decision. The applicant also sought leave to appear before the appeal court. 48.     According to the Government, the District Court fixed six trial hearings between 17 and 24 December 2002. They were adjourned because the applicant's lawyer defaulted. 49.     On 8 January 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court examined the grounds of the applicant's appeal against the decision of 15 December 2002 and upheld the decision. According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer was called to the appeal hearing. According to the Government, the applicant's lawyer was given notice of the appeal hearing but defaulted and failed to notify the Regional Court about the reasons for his absence. The Government provided the Court with a copy of the notice addressed to a prosecutor and to the applicant's lawyer. The notice did not bear the signature of any court official. 12.     Interlocutory orders on legal fees and requests for removal 50.     On 15 December 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court ordered that the applicant should pay RUR 258 (less than EUR 10) in legal fees. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that order. 51.     On 25 December 2002 the District Court dismissed requests by the applicant and his co-defendant for the removal of the prosecutor, the presiding judge and one of the applicant's lawyers, Mr Simkin. The applicant has alleged that he did not receive that decision and, therefore, could not appeal against it. 13.     Detention order of 25 December 2002 (period to 1 April 2003) and trial hearings 52.     On 25 December 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention to 1 April 2003. It held that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences, the victims and witnesses had not yet been questioned and, therefore, that the detention should be extended. The applicant and his lawyer, Mr Khaymin, attended the hearing. 53.     From 13 January to 7 February 2003 the District Court fixed five hearings which were adjourned owing to the absence of the applicant's lawyer. On 18 February 2003, upon the applicant's request, he was assigned new counsel. The proceedings were stayed until 13 March 2003 to allow the new lawyer to study the case file. 54.     On 7 March 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court disallowed appeals by the applicant and his lawyer against the extension order of 25   December 2002 because they had missed the time-limit. It asked the District Court to determine whether the time-limit could be extended. According to the applicant, the District Court did not take any actions following that decision of the Regional Court. The Government did not comment on this. 14.     Detention order of 26 March 2003 (period to 1 July 2003) 55.     On 26 March 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention to 1 July 2003. The court noted that the applicant had no criminal record, that he had a permanent place of residence and work, that he was the breadwinner for two minor children and that he suffered from several illnesses. On the other hand, he was charged with serious criminal offences, victims and witnesses had not yet been heard, and the case had been pending for a long time, owing mostly to the applicant's conduct. The applicant, if released, could therefore obstruct the proceedings. 56.     According to the applicant, on 3 April 2003 he and his lawyer lodged an appeal against that decision. The appeal was never examined. 15.     Detention order of 26 June 2003 (period to 1 October 2003) 57.     On 25 June 2003 the applicant sought the removal of the entire bench and the prosecutor. The court dismissed those requests. 58.     On 26 June 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court ruled out certain evidence as inadmissible. In the same decision the trial court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the manslaughter charges because the statutory limitation period had expired, and extended the applicant's detention to 1 October 2003. The court noted that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that the trial was pending. 59.     The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the decision of 26   June 2003 but subsequently withdrew their appeals. C.     Partial discontinuance of proceedings and conviction 60.     On 10 July 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the charges of unlawful confinement because the conduct in question could not be characterised as a criminal offence. 61.     On the same day the District Court found the applicant guilty of causing bodily injuries and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment. The applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town pending the appeal proceedings. 62 .     On 15 July and 12 August 2003 the applicant lodged appeals against the conviction. On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer appealed against the judgment of 10 July 2003. 63.     On 24 February 2004 the applicant and his lawyer withdrew their appeals. 64 .     On 3 March 2004 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court accepted the withdrawal and discontinued the appeal proceedings. On the same day the applicant's written undertaking not to leave the town was cancelled. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 65.     Until 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federalist Socialist Republic (Law of 27 October 1960, “the old CCrP”). From 1 July 2002 the old CCrP was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Law no. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001, “the new CCrP”). A.     Preventive measures 66.     “Preventive measures” or “measures of restraint” include an undertaking not to leave a town or region, personal security, bail and detention on remand (Article 89 of the old CCrP, Article 98 of the new CCrP). B.     Authorities empowered to detain on remand 67.     The Russian Constitution of 12 December 1993 establishes that a judicial decision is required before a defendant can be detained or his or her detention extended (Article 22). Under the old CCrP, a decision to detain someone on remand could be taken by a prosecutor or a court (Articles 11, 89 and 96). The new CCrP requires a judicial decision by a district or town court on a reasoned request by a prosecutor supported by appropriate evidence (Article 108 §§   1, 3-6). C.     Grounds for detention on remand 68.     When deciding whether to remand an accused in custody, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “sufficient grounds to believe” that he or she would abscond during the investigation or trial or obstruct the establishment of the truth or re-offend (Article 89 of the old CCrP). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused's character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 91 of the old CCrP, Article 99 of the new CCrP). 69 .     Before 14 March 2001, detention on remand was authorised if the accused was charged with a criminal offence carrying a sentence of at least one year's imprisonment or if there were “exceptional circumstances” in the case (Article 96). On 14 March 2001 the old CCrP was amended to permit defendants to be remanded in custody if the charge carried a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment or if they had previously defaulted or had no permanent residence in Russia or if their identity could not be ascertained. The amendments of 14 March 2001 also repealed the provision that permitted defendants to be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerous nature of the criminal offence committed. The new CCrP reproduces the amended provisions (Articles 97 § 1 and 108 § 1) and adds that a defendant should not be remanded in custody if a less severe preventive measure is available. D.     Time-limits for detention on remand 1.     Two types of detention on remand 70.     The Codes provide for a distinction between two types of detention on remand: the first being “during the investigation”, that is while a competent agency – the police or a prosecutor's office – is investigating the case, and the second being “before the court” (or “during the trial proceedings”), at the judicial stage. Although there is no difference in practice between them (the detainee is held in the same detention facility), the calculation of the time-limits is different. 2.     Time-limits for detention “before the court”   /   “during the judicial proceedings” 71.     From the date the prosecutor refers the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is classified as “before the court” (or “during the judicial proceedings”). 72.     Before 14   March 2001 the old CCrP set no time-limit for detention “during the judicial proceedings”. On 14 March 2001 a new Article 239-1 was inserted which established that the period of detention “during the judicial proceedings” could not generally exceed six months from the date the court received the file. However, if there was evidence to show that the defendant's release might impede a thorough, complete and objective examination of the case, a court could – of its own motion or on a request by a prosecutor – extend the detention by no longer than three months. These provisions did not apply to defendants charged with particularly serious criminal offences. 73 .     The new CCrP establishes that the term of detention “during the judicial proceedings” is calculated from the date the court received the file up to the date the judgment is given. The period of detention “during the judicial proceedings” may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3). E.     Proceedings to examine the lawfulness of detention During the judicial proceedings 74.     Upon receipt of the case file, the judge must determine, in particular, whether the defendant should be held in custody or released pending the trial hearings (Articles 222 § 5 and 230 of the old CCrP, Articles 228 (3) and 231 § 2 (6) of the new CCrP) and rule on any application by the defendant for release (Article 223 of the old CCrP). 75 .     At any time during the judicial proceedings the court may order, vary or revoke any preventive measure, including detention on remand (Article 260 of the old CCrP, Article 255 § 1 of the new CCrP). Any such decision must be given in the deliberation room and signed by all the judges on the bench (Article 261 of the old CCrP, Article 256 of the new CCrP). 76 .     An appeal against such a decision lies to the higher court. It must be lodged within ten days and examined within the same time-limit as an appeal against the judgment on the merits (Article 331 of the old CCrP, Article 255 § 4 of the new CCrP – see paragraph 96 below). F.     Time-limits for trial proceedings 77.     Under the old CCrP, within fourteen days after receipt of the case file (if the defendant was in custody), the judge was required either: (1) to fix the trial date; (2) to return the case for further investigation; (3) to stay or discontinue the proceedings; or (4) to refer the case to a court having jurisdiction to hear it (Article 221). The new CCrP empowers the judge, within the same time-limit, (1) to refer the case to a competent court; (2) to fix a date for a preliminary hearing; or (3) to fix a trial date (Article 227). In the latter case, the trial proceedings must begin no later than fourteen days after the judge has fixed the trial date (Article 239 of the old CCrP, Article   233 § 1 of the new CCrP). There are no restrictions on fixing the date of a preliminary hearing. 78.     The duration of the entire trial proceedings is not limited in time. 79.     Under the old CCrP, the appeal court was required to examine an appeal against the first-instance judgment within ten days after it was lodged. In exceptional circumstances or in complex cases or in proceedings before the Supreme Court this time-limit could be extended by up to two months (Article 333). No further extensions were possible. The new CCrP establishes that the appeal court must start the examination of the appeal no later than one month after it is lodged (Article   374). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 (c) OF THE CONVENTION 80.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his detention on remand from 17 October 2000 to 10 July 2003 had been unlawful. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so...” A.     Submissions by the parties 81.     The Government argued that the entire term of detention was compatible with the domestic procedural rules and free from arbitrariness. At the beginning of the criminal proceedings the domestic authorities decided not to remand the applicant in custody. However, owing to his behaviour, and in particular the fact that he had threatened the victim and could have perverted the course of justice, the District Court authorised his placement in custody. The detention was extended at regular intervals in accordance with domestic procedure. On 1 July 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention on remand for three months in compliance with the requirements of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. On 1 October 2002 the District Court extended his detention for a further three months. The decision of 1 October 2002 was quashed on 13   November 2002 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on procedural, that is purely formal, grounds. The Regional Court held that the measure of restraint against the applicant should “remain unchanged”. Following the re-examination of the detention issue, the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January 2003. Moreover, while the re-examination proceedings were still pending, on 20   November 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court held that the applicant should remain in custody. On 25 December 2002, 26 March 2003 and 26 June 2003 the District Court, in accordance with the rules laid down in the new Code of Criminal Procedure, extended the applicant's detention each time for three months. On 10 July 2003 the applicant was released. 82.     The applicant argued that the decision concerning his placement in custody and the subsequent decisions extending his detention on remand had been issued in breach of domestic requirements. Therefore the entire period of his detention had been unlawful. B.     The Court's assessment 1.     Admissibility 83 .     The Court observes at the outset that on 21 January 2003 the applicant complained to the Court that he had been unlawfully detained after 1 July 2002. In the application form lodged with the Court on 14 June 2004, for the first time, he complained about the entire period of his detention on remand. The Court therefore considers that the applicant's complaints in respect of the detention orders issued before 1   July 2002 were introduced out of time, that is more than six months after the end of the period in question, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 84.     The Court further notes that the complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention after 1 July 2002 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     General principles 85.     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. 86.     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 Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v.   Poland , no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III). (b)     Detention from 1 July to 1 October 2002 87.     The Court notes that on 1 July 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court authorised the applicant's detention on remand until 1 October 2002 because of the gravity of the charges against him and the threats he had made against the victim. The trial court acted within its powers in making that decision and there is nothing to suggest that it was invalid or unlawful under domestic law. The question whether the reasons for the decision were sufficient and relevant is analysed below in connection with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3. In the cases of Stašaitis v. Lithuania (no. 47679/99, 21 March 2002) and Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2005-X) the Court accepted that similar decisions by trial courts were compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. There is nothing in the present case to warrant a different conclusion. 88.     The Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand from 1   July to 1 October 2002. (c)     Detention from 1 October to 13 November 2002 89.     The Court observes that on 1 October 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January 2003. On 13 November 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed that decision because of breaches of the rules of criminal procedure and ordered a re-examination of his detention in respect of that period. 90.     The issue to be determined is whether the detention in that period was “lawful”, including whether it complied with “a procedure prescribed by law”. The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if served pursuant to a court order. A subsequent finding that the court erred under domestic law in making the order will not necessarily affect retrospectively the validity of the intervening period of detention. 91.     In the present case the Court will consider whether the detention order of 1 October 2002 constituted a lawful basis for the applicant's detention until it was quashed on 13 November 2002. The mere fact that the order was set aside on appeal did not in itself affect the lawfulness of the detention in the preceding period (see Benham v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III, §§   43   and 46). 92.     It has not been alleged that on 1 October 2002 the District Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Indeed, as a matter of domestic law, it had the authority to examine the issue of extension of the applicant's detention and to grant a further extension, not exceeding three months (see paragraph 73 above). Furthermore, the Court finds that the applicant's detention on the basis of the order of 1 October 2002 cannot be said to have been arbitrary as the court gave certain grounds justifying the continued detention on remand. The sufficiency and relevance of these grounds will be discussed below from the standpoint of Article 5 §   3 of the Convention. 93.     It has not therefore been established that, in issuing the detention order of 1 October 2002, the District 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 Khudoyorov , cited above, § 132, with further references). 94.     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 October to 13 November 2002. (d)     Detention from 13 November to 15 December 2002 95.     The Court notes that on 13 November 2002 the Regional Court, having quashed the District Court's decision, held that the preventive measure imposed on the applicant “should remain unchanged” and ordered a re-examination of the detention. On 20   November 2002, while the re-examination proceedings were still pending, the District Court extended the applicant's detention on remand without setting a time-limit or citing any grounds for the extension. On 15   December 2002 the District Court re-examined the detention and authorised an extension until 1 January 2003. 96.     The Court observes that on 13 and 20 November 2002 the Regional and District courts, respectively, did not give any reasons for their decisions to remand the applicant in custody. Nor did they set a time-limit for the continued detention or, in the case of the Regional Court, for a re-examination of the detention by the District Court. Leaving aside the concurrent developments in the applicant's case (see paragraph 99 below), it transpires that for more than a month the applicant remained in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds for his detention from 13 November to 15   December 2002, when the District Court eventually re-examined the detention. 97.     The Court has already examined and found a violation of Article   5   §   1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases concerning a similar set of facts. In particular, the Court held that the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia , no.   55669/00, §§ 70-71, 2 March 2006, and Stašaitis , cited above, § 67). Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention on remand 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 , cited above, § 142). 98.     The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It considers that the Regional Court's decision of 13   November 2002 and the District Court's decision of 20 November 2002 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. 99 .     The Court also finds that the District Court's decision of 15   December 2002, as upheld on appeal on 8 January 2003, did not constitute a “lawful” basis for the applicant's detention from 13 November to 15 December 2002. That decision authorised the applicant's detention from 1 October 2002 to 1 January 2003, out of which a period of two months and fourteen days was thus authorised retrospectively. The Government did not indicate any domestic legal provision that permitted a decision to be taken authorising a period of detention retrospectively.   It follows that the applicant's detention, in so far as it had been authorised by a judicial decision issued in respect of the preceding period, was not “lawful” under domestic law.     Furthermore, the Court reiterates t