CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG27
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 mars 2021
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0325DEC007269216
- Date
- 25 mars 2021
- Publication
- 25 mars 2021
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleInadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 72692/16 Rafael Nakipovich ZARIPOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   March 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24   September 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article 5 § 3 “3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article   5 § 3 of the Convention, have been developed in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96 , § 110, ECHR 2000-XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03 , §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-X, with further references). Having examined the materials submitted, the Court notes that, while extending the applicant’s detention, the domestic courts relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in aggravated and violent offences, the complexity of the criminal case against him and the existence of a serious risk of his absconding or interfering with administration of justice, confirmed, inter alia , by the pattern of his behaviour, organised nature of the crimes, extensive connection to the criminal underworld and/or substantial financial resources. The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusions that the applicant was liable to obstruct justice, to re-offend or to abscond. They also considered a possibility of applying alternative measures to the applicant but found them to be inadequate. The domestic courts duly examined all the pertinent factors and gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the applicant’s continued detention. The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia , no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v.   Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia , no. 57319/10, 18   December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia , no. 20756/04, 22   October 2009). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 15 April 2021.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention 72692/16 24/09/2016 Rafael Nakipovich ZARIPOV 1983 05/12/2013 to 23/03/2017 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 19 day(s)    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 27
- Date
- 25 mars 2021
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0325DEC007269216
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral