Speediness of Judicial Review of the Lawfulness of Detention: European Approach to Russian problems

Available only in Russian

Price 140 rub.

Author: Alexey Laptev

Keywords: Article 5 §4 of the Convention, Article 5 §5 of the Convention, European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, right to compensation, speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention


The article provides an analysis of case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the requirement of “speediness” of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention (Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights) in the context of criminal proceedings. Its approach to the periods and relevant factors to be taken into consideration when assessing speediness of the proceedings has been explored. The Court’s standards concerning the question of compliance with the “speediness” requirement are rather strict. It can be deduced from its case-law that two weeks at first instance and three weeks on appeal may be a rough rule of thumb in such cases. The article also contains an overview of judicial remedies against detention on remand available under the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and discusses whether Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is applicable to extraordinary remedies such as cassation appeals on points of law and supervisory review appeals. Violation of the “speediness” requirement in detention review proceedings is a widespread problem in Russia. A breach of this requirement gives rise to the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention which is currently not enforceable in Russia. The author comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to develop and implement a mechanism which secures compensation for violation of the “speediness” requirement, by analogy with Federal Law no. 68-FZ of April 30, 2010 “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within Reasonable Time”.

About the author: Alexey Laptev – Doctor of Laws (Dr. jur.), LL.M. (Kiel), Human Rights Expert, Prison Litigation Network, Lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights (2010–2014).

Сitation: Laptev A. (2016) Bezotlagatel'nost' rassmotreniya sudom pravomernosti soderzhaniya pod strazhey: evropeyskie podkhody k rossiyskim problemam [Speediness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention: European approach to Russian problems]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.48–63. (In Russian).


Abramochkin V.V. (2010) Otdel'nye aspekty otmeny i izmeneniya mery presecheniya v vide zaklyucheniya pod strazhu, izbrannoy v khode dosudebnogo proizvodstva [Some aspects of cancelling and changing preventive detention ordered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings]. In: Kachalov V.I. [et al.] (eds.) Ugolovno-protsessual'noe zakonodatel'stvo v sovremennykh usloviyakh: problemy teorii i praktiki [Criminal procedure law in the present time: problems of theory and practice], Moscow: Wolters Kluwer. (In Russian).

Arzamastseva К.А., Karetnikov A.S. (2009) Sudebnyy poryadok otmeny ili izmeneniya sudom mery presecheniya v vide soderzhaniya pod strazhey v dosudebnom proizvodstve po ugolovnomu delu [Judicial procedure for cancelling or changing preventive detention in pre-trial criminal proceedings]. Rossiyskiy sud'ya, no.2, pp.27–29. (In Russian).

Burganov R.S., Bikmiyev R.G. (2015) Khodataystva ob izmenenii ili otmene mery presecheniya, vidy prinimaemykh po nim sudebnykh resheniy i osnovaniya dlya ikh prinyatiya [Pleadings for change or cancel a preventive measure, types and grounds of judicial decisions on these cases]. Sud'ya, no.12, pp.37–41. (In Russian).

Karpenstein U., Mayer F.C. (Hrsg.) (2015) Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten: EMRK Kommentar. 2. Aufl. München: C.H.Beck.

Roca J.G., Santolaya P. (eds.) (2012) Europe of Rights: A Compendium on the European Convention of Human Rights, Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Rukavishnikov P.P. (2012) Otkaz suda v izmenenii mery presecheniya kak predmet samostoyatel'nogo kassatsionnogo (apellyatsionnogo) obzha­lovaniya [Refusal of the court to change a preventive measure as the subject of separate reversal appeal]. Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik, no.3, pp.102–106. (In Russian).

Yurkina E.E. (2015) Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka o novoy kassatsii v grazhdanskom protsesse – novy vzglyad Suda na starye voprosy?: Reshenie Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka po delu Abramyan i Yakubovskie protiv Rossii v otnoshenii ischerpaniya vnutrennikh sredstv pravovoy zashchity [The European Court of Human Rights. Decision on a renewed appeal in civil lawsuit – A new look of the Court at the old issues?: Commentary on the Judgment of the ECHR in the case of Abramyan andYakubovskiy v. Russia in respect of the exhaustion of domestic legal remedies]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.4, pp.11–23. (In Russian).

Понравился материал?

We will be happy with a small, if possible, monthly help, which gives us confidence in the future and the ability to plan our activities. Поддержите деятельность Института!