FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 45100/98 by Igor Vladilenovich PANCHENKO against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 10 October 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs E. Palm, President , Mrs W. Thomassen, Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Mr R. Türmen, Mr C. Bîrsan, Mr J. Casadevall, Mr R. Maruste,

Mr A. Kovler, judges ,

and Mr M. O ’ Boyle, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 June 1998 and registered on 18 December 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are is a Russian citizen , born in 1962 and living in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is now in detention on remand in St. Petersburg.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

Arrest and Detention

The applicant served as a major in the Transport Division of the St. Petersburg Department of the Interior. On 31 August 1995 he was arrested. On 1 September 1995 the North-Western Transport Prosecutor authorised detention on remand for two months, in accordance with Article 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Уголовно-Процессуальный Кодекс ) (CCP). On 7 September 1995 the applicant was charged with fraud, theft, robbery and abuse of power, committed together with two other police officers, on several occasions between 1992 and 1995.

On 27 October 1995 and on 28 February 1996 the applicant ’ s further detention was authorised by the North-Western Transport Prosecutor and then by the Deputy Prosecutor General, in accordance with Article 97 of the CCP. The following reasons for detention on remand were given: the applicant was charged with a serious crime, as a police officer he could interfere with the investigations and abscond justice; since his parents resided in Ukraine and his wife ’ s residence was unknown, he could have fled justice, including by leaving Russia.

On 9 October 1995, 22 December 1995, 5 May 1996, on the applicant ’ s appeals, the lawfulness of his detention was examined and confirmed by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg.

Trial Proceedings

On 27 April 1996 the investigation was completed and the bill of indictment was presented to the applicant and his lawyer. They were allowed access to the case-file from 29 April 1996 to 14 May 1996.

The applicant attempted to contest the powers of the Deputy Prosecutor General to authorise his detention for additional six months. On 2 June 1998, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow ( Тверской межмуниципальный суд г. Москвы ) rejected the applicant ’ s claim alleging illegality of the Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation of 17 January 1992 on the powers of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and his deputies. This decision was confirmed by the Moscow City Court ( судебная коллегия по гражданским делам Московского городского суда ) on 14 July 1998. On 6 May 1999 a judge of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s complaint about illegality of the Decree of the President, appointing the Deputy Prosecutor General. On 29 July 1999 the Cassation Collegium of the Supreme Court ( Кассационная коллегия Верxовного Суда ) confirmed the decision of 6 May 1999.

On 18 May 1996 the case was forwarded to the Smolninskiy District Court in St. Petersburg ( Смольнинский районный суд г. Санкт-Пе те рбурга ). The date of the court hearing was set for 24 July 1996, but the first hearing took place on 12 September 1996, because, allegedly, the applicant was not brought to the courtroom by the prison guards. The applicant alleges that he was not informed of the dates of the hearings.

On 9 October 1996 the Smolninskiy District Court returned the case to the prosecutor ’ s office for additional investigation, in accordance with Article 232 §§ 1, 3 CCP. This decision was quashed by the St. Petersburg City Court ( судебная коллегия по уголовным делам Санкт-Петербургского городского суда ) on 24 December 1996, on appeal by the prosecutor, and remitted.

It appears that the Smolninskiy District Court than held sessions on the case on 24-25 February 1997, 31 March - 1 April, and 15 September 1997. On 15 September 1997 the Smolninskiy District Court adjourned hearings, on the applicant ’ s motion, to allow him further study of the case-file. The next sessions took place on 22 December 1997 and on 9, 11, 12 February 1998. On 12 February 1998 the Smolninskiy District Court adjourned the hearings and ordered a medical psychiatric expertise of the applicant.

The applicant could not appeal the court orders fixing the next hearing date and adjourning the hearings in the part which authorised his continued detention on remand, as Article 331 of the CCP gave a right of appeal of such orders only to prosecutors.

On 29 July 1997 the applicant ’ s claim about the unlawfulness of his detention was rejected by the Oktyabrskiy District Court (confirmed by the St. Petersburg City Court on 14 October 1998). On 22 December 1997 the Oktyabrskiy District Court has again rejected the applicant ’ s claim about the unlawfulness of detention and his civil claim to the Prosecutor ’ s Office for damages. The decision was confirmed by the St. Petersburg City Court on 4 February 1998.

On 5 May 1998, following ratification, the Convention entered into force in relation to Russia.

On 4 June 1998 the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the applicant ’ s civil action to the Smolninskiy District Court for illegal detention in which he claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision on 8 October 1998.

On 2 July 1998 the Constitutional Court, on the request of the applicant and others, adopted Decision No. 20-P ( Постановление Конституционного Суда от 2 июля 1998 года № 20-П по делу о проверке конституционности отдельных положений статей 331 и 464 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса РСФСР в связи с жалобами ряда граждан ). In the Decision, the Court found Article 331 § 1.2-3 CCP inconsistent with the Constitution, as it allowed prosecutors but not the accused to appeal, separately from the decision on the merits, interim orders ( определения ) of the first instance courts on questions concerning adjournments and the fixing of hearing dates, which had the effect of extending the terms of detention on remand.

The trial resumed on 1 July 1998. On 17 July the Smolninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years of imprisonment and made confiscation orders. The time spend in remand was to be deducted from the sentence. The applicant appealed to the St. Petersburg City Court.

Appeals Proceedings and Challenges to Detention Orders

On 11 November 1998 the St. Petersburg City Court returned the case-file to the Smolninskiy District Court, because the applicant has not been allowed access to it after the trial court decision, in violation of Article 328 CCP.

On 3 June 1999 the St. Petersburg City Court quashed the conviction of 17 July 1998 because of a number of procedural irregularities which had occurred during the trial. The City Court ruled that, pending a new trial in the same district court, the applicant should remain in detention. The City Court did not give any reasons for the detention, and the applicant did not appeal the detention order.

On 26 July 1999 the Smolninskiy District Court, on the prosecutor ’ s request, returned the case to the North-Western Transport Prosecution for an additional investigation, on the basis of Article 232 CCP. The Court also ordered that the applicant should remain in detention. It gave the following reasons for the applicant ’ s detention: he was charged with a serious crime, in view of his personal circumstances, he could abscond or obstruct investigations, he could flee from justice, including by leaving Russia.

The applicant appealed against the detention order to the St. Petersburg City Court. While the exact date of the appeal is not apparent from the submissions, the general rule on appeals of court orders provides for a seven days term from the moment the detainee had notice of the decision.

The St. Petersburg City Court proceeded to fix the date for the hearing of the appeal on detention for 28 September 1999. On 28 September 1999 the City Court requested the Smolninskiy District Court to immediately forward the case-file for the appeal hearing.

On 28 September 1999 the criminal Prosecutor of the North-Western Transport Prosecution admitted the case for investigation and requested the applicant ’ s detention ( Постановление о принятии дела к своему производству и о возбуждении ходатайства об установлении срока предварительного следствия и содержания под стражей ). The request was granted by the acting North-Western Transport Prosecutor on the same day, for one month, i.e. until 28 October 1999.

On 18 October 1999 a judge of the Smolninskyi District Court informed the applicant that his case-file was with the North-Western Transport Prosecution for additional investigation.

On 26 October 1999 the North-Western Transport Prosecutor quashed the Order of 28 September 1999, because the District Court decision of 26 July 1999 did not enter into force while the appeal was pending. On the same day, the case-file was forwarded to the Smolninskiy District Court to be joined with the appeal and forwarded to the St. Petersburg City Court.

On 2 November 1999 the St. Petersburg City Court heard the applicant ’ s complaint about his continued detention on remand, and confirmed the decision of the Smolninskiy District Court of 26 July 1999, which subsequently entered into force. The City Court confirmed the validity of reasons for detention, cited in the decision of 26 July 1999: the applicant was charged with a serious crime, in view of his personal circumstances, the applicant could abscond or obstruct investigations, he could flee from justice, including by leaving Russia.

On 17 November 1999 the criminal Prosecutor of the North-Western Transport Prosecution admitted the case for investigation and requested the applicant ’ s detention. The request was granted by the acting North-Western Transport Prosecutor on the same day, for one month, i.e. until 17 December 1999. The applicant appealed, and on 26 November 1999 the Admiralteyskiy District Court of St. Petersburg confirmed the Prosecutor ’ s decision of 17 November 1999. The court noted the seriousness of the charges, possibility of absconding justice and fleeing from the investigation and the court.

On 17 December 1999 the criminal Prosecutor of the North-Western Transport Prosecution informed the supervisor of the remand centre, where the applicant was detained, that the investigation in the applicant ’ s case was over, and the criminal case would be forwarded to the court. The case was forwarded to the Smolninskiy District Court on 20 December 1999.

On 30 December 1999 the Smolninskiy District Court again ordered the case to be returned to the Prosecutor ’ s office for additional investigation, and to allow the applicant further access to the case-file. The Court confirmed that the applicant should remain detained on remand. The court reasoned detention as before - the applicant was charged with a serious crime, in view of his personal circumstances he could abscond or obstruct investigations, he could flee from justice, including by leaving Russia.

* * * *

Search of Apartment and Restitution Claims

On 31 August, 1 and 5 September and 16 October 1995 the applicant ’ s flat, office and his parent ’ s flat in St. Petersburg were searched and a number of items were confiscated, including audio and video equipment, knives, fire and gas guns and cartridges, money in cash, liquor in bottles, cigarettes. On 26 April 1996 by a decision of the North-Western Transport Prosecution some of these items were destroyed, as unfit for safe-keeping.

On 25 February 1997 the applicant was informed by the Head of the department of the North-Western Transport Prosecution that his complaints concerning confiscated property were unsubstantiated. By the same letter the applicant was informed that his request to initiate criminal proceedings against the prosecution officers was rejected.

On 13 April 1998 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg adjourned consideration of the applicant ’ s civil claim concerning return of confiscated property from the North-Western Transport Prosecution, pending the decision on the criminal case. On 27 May 1998 the decision was confirmed by the St. Petersburg City Court.

* * * *

Claims Concerning Salary

Following the applicant ’ s arrest, his service was suspended in October 1995, starting from September 1995. Pending trial, his salary and other payments were transferred by the Ministry of Interior to a deposit account, which the applicant could not use.

On 17 October 1997 a judge of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s civil claim to the Ministry of Defence concerning payment of his salary for the period in detention, interest and non-pecuniary damages. The applicant was advised to apply to a district court at the location of the respondent.

On 25 November 1997 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s claim to the Ministry of Interior about unlawfulness of the Ministry ’ s Order No. 292 of 31 July 1995 in part, preventing employees of the Ministry of Interior from using the salary and payments, if they were detained under criminal charges. The Supreme Court found the Order of the Ministry in conformity with the federal legislation and the Constitution. On 14 May 1998 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s request for a review of the case on the ground of newly discovered circumstances.

B. Relevant domestic law

Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 96 (Arrest) sets out grounds for detention, and authorises public prosecutors, from the level of a district or town prosecutor to the Prosecutor General, to authorise detention on remand.

Article 97 (Terms of detention on remand) provides that detention on remand during the investigation of criminal cases may not last for more than two months. This term can be extended by the relevant prosecutor to three months, and further detention can be authorised by a regional prosecutor (or a prosecutor of equal rank) up to a maximum of six months.

Extension of detention beyond six months is allowed in respect of persons suspected of committing serious crimes, and can be authorised by a Deputy Prosecutor General for a period of up to one year, and by the Prosecutor General - to one and a half years. Further extension of detention is not allowed, the person is subject to immediate release.

The detainee should be allowed access to the case-file at least a month before the expiry of the maximum term of detention. If he has not finished studying the case-file by the end of that term, the Prosecutor General or a regional prosecutor can ask a court to extend the detention by another six months. The same applies where the accused or his lawyer request for additional investigation measures.

If the court forwards the case for additional investigation, where the term of detention on remand has expired, the relevant prosecutor can extend the period of detention on remand for up to one month. Further detention is authorised in the same order as prescribed above, taking into account the time already spend in detention before the case has been forwarded to the court.

Article 216 (Forwarding the case-file to the court) provides that, after the investigation is completed, the prosecutor must approve the bill of indictment and forward the case to the court. Thereafter, all complaints and requests must be forwarded directly to the court.

By Articles 218 and 220, complaints about actions of the investigator are submitted to the investigator, who should forward them to the relevant prosecutor within 24 hours, and complaints against a prosecutor are submitted to a higher-ranking prosecutor. On 23 March 1999 the Constitutional Court found these articles, in parts that prevented judicial review, unconstitutional. From that date, decisions of an investigator or a prosecutor concerning the conduct of seizures and searches, other investigation actions, extension of preliminary investigation, etc, can be appealed to a court. The decision also allowed complaints to be brought to a court directly, bypassing the supervising prosecutor.

An appeal against an order extending periods of detention lies with a court (Articles 220-1 and 220-2 of the CCP).

Articles 223-1 (Setting the date for the hearing) and 230 (Order on setting the date of the hearing) provide that when the accused is in detention, the judge by order should set the date for the first hearing within 15 days from receiving the case-file from the prosecutor. In his order the judge should also decide whether the accused should remain in detention.

Article 232 (Returning the case for an additional investigation) stipulates that the court can return the case for an additional investigation inter alia if the initial investigation was incomplete, if there was a serious violation of procedural rules by the investigation bodies or if there are reasons to charge the accused with another crime. On 20 April 1999 the Constitutional Court declared some provisions of this Article unconstitutional, to the extent that they allowed the court to act as an investigating body and to carry out the functions of the prosecution.

If the court forwards the case for an additional investigation, it should also decide on whether the accused should remain in detention.

By Article 258 (Forwarding the case for an additional investigation), during the hearing, the court can decide to forward the case for an additional investigation, as provided in Article 232. After the additional investigation is completed and the case is send to the court again, the hearing starts from the beginning.

Article 260 (Decision on remand measures) provides that during the hearing the court can also decide on any necessary prevention measures.

Article 331 (Appeals of orders of the first instance court and judges) provides a possibility to appeal orders ( определения и постановления ) of the first instance court and judges, except orders on, inter alia , fixing hearings, forwarding the case for additional investigation. This Article was found unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 2 July 1998, to the extent that it prevented persons in detention from appealing court orders which had the effect of extending their detention.

Decision No 20-P of the Constitutional Court of 2 July 1998

The Constitutional Court found that Article 331 §§ 2 and 3 and 464 § 1 of the CCP violated Article 6 of the European Convention and provisions of the Russian Constitution that guarantee equality of arms. The above mentioned articles allowed prosecutors, but not the defendant, to appeal to a higher court orders ( постановления и определения ) of the trial court, that fixed hearings, forwarded the case to the prosecution for further investigation, ordered a medical expertise, etc. Such orders effected for those under arrest a continuation of detention on remand.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that his arrest and detention in 1995 were not lawful. He refers to Article 5 § 1 (c).

2. The applicants complain s that he was denied trial within a reasonable time, while in detention on remand. He is in detention since August 1995, and the criminal charge against him has not been determined in the final instance. He refers to Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains that there was no court investigation of the lawfulness of his detention after the case has been transferred to the trial court in April 1996, and until his conviction on 17 July 1998. He refers to Articles 5 § 4 and 13.

4. The applicant complains that the decision of the St. Petersburg City Court of 3 June 1999, which quashed and remitted his conviction, but ordered his continued detention pending a new trial, constituted a violation of Article 5 § 4, because he was not able to challenge the lawfulness of the detention.

5. The applicant further submits that his appeal against the order of the trial court of 26 July 1999 concerning his detention was decided upon on 2 November 1999. The applicant complains that his right to have the lawfulness of detention examined speedily by a court, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 4, was violated.

6. The applicant complains that he was denied compensation for illegal detention. He refers to Article 5 § 5.

7. The applicant complains that during the hearing of his case in the court of first instance in July 1998 his rights for adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence were violated, because he did not have enough time to study the case-file and because the court denied his requests for additional witnesses examination. The applicant also submits that the court which decided his case on 17 July 1998 was not authorised to do so. The applicant also complains that because he was not allowed to use his salary while in detention he was unable to hire a lawyer of his choosing due to lack of funds. He invokes Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (b), (c) and (d).

8. The applicant complains that, by carrying out a search and seizure in his house in 1995, his rights for privacy of home and property were violated by the investigating authorities. He refers to Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

THE LAW

1 . The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that decisions about his arrest and detention in 1995 and 1996 were unlawful.

Article 5 § 1 (c) provides 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.“

The decision in respect of the applicant ’ s arrest was taken on 31 August 1995, and decisions to extend his detention - on 1 September, 27 October 1995 and 28 February 1996. The final decision as regards this part of the case was taken by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg on 5 May 1996. Th ese complaints thus relate to the period prior to 5 May 1998, which is the date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to Russia.

It follows that this part of the application is outside the competence ratione temporis of the Court and therefore incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

2. The applicant complains that his detention on remand exceeds a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Article 5 § 3 provides, as far as relevant:

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”.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

3. The applicant complains that there was no court investigation of the lawfulness of his detention, after the investigations have been completed in April 1996 and the case-file had been transferred to the trial court. The applicant refers to Article 5 § 4 and Article 13.

Article 5 § 4 reads as following:

“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

Article 13 reads:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The applicant refers to events that occurred between April 1996, when the investigation was completed, and 17 July 1998, when the trial court found the applicant guilty. The Court reiterates that it can only examine events that took place after 5 May 1998, which is the date of entry of the Convention in respect of Russia. It can only, therefore, look at the procedures that took place between 5 May 1998 and 17 July 1998. It notes, however, that no requests relating to lawfulness of detention were submitted by the applicant and no procedures under Article 5 § 4 took place in the period between 5 May 1998 and 17 July 1998.

It follows that this part of the application, in so far as it concerns matters prior to 5 May 1998, is outside the competence ratione temporis of the Court and therefore incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

4. The applicant complains that he could not have the lawfulness of his detention challenged after the City Court on 3 June 1999, acting on appeal, quashed the conviction and remitted the case. The applicant refers to Article 5 § 4.

Article 5 § 4 reads as following:

“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

5. The applicant further submits that the City Court considered on appeal on 2 November 1999 the question of lawfulness of his detention, which was ordered by the trial court on 26 July 1999. The applicant alleges violation of his right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court and refers to Article 5 § 4.

Article 5 § 4 reads as following:

“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

6. The applicant also complains that his right for compensation as a victim of unlawful arrest and detention during the investigation was violated by the decisions of the courts.

Article 5 § 5 of the Convention reads:

“ Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”

The Court recalls that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention guarantees an enforceable right to compensation of those whose detention was in contravention of one of the other provisions of Article 5. Such a finding of a contravention may be made by the domestic authorities or by the Convention organs (No. 28779/95, Cumber v. the UK. Dec. 27.11.1996).

In the present case the applicant requested the domestic courts to make a finding on unlawfulness of his detention pursuant to the prosecution orders (August 1995 - May 1996) and to award him compensation for the detention at the expense of the relevant prosecution service. The domestic courts in their decisions of 1997 - 1998 rejected the applicant ’ s claim.

In the absence of the domestic courts ’ decision on legality of detention, the Court should itself establish whether the applicant was a victim of arrest and detention in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1-4. The Court here notes, however, that the detention of which the applicant complains took place before 5 May 1998, which is the date of entry of the Convention into force with respect to Russia. Therefore, the Court is not in a position to decide whether there have been violations of Article 5 §§ 1-4 relating to the applicant ’ s detention during the investigation. It therefore declares this part of the application inadmissible ratione materiae as it does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 5.

7. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the decision of the District Court of 17 July 1998 was not fair, and that the proceedings did not comply with this provision in a number of respects.

Article 6 reads, as far as relevant:

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...

3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ...

b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.

However, the Court notes that the judgment of the Smolninskiy District Court of 17 July 1998, by which the applicant was sentenced to six years of imprisonment, has been quashed by the St. Petersburg City Court on 3 June 1999 and remitted for a new trial.

In the light of the above, the Court considers that these complaints are premature, the proceedings not having come to an end. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

8. The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the search and seizure conducted at his flat and at his parents ’ flat in 1995 violated his right to respect for private life and property.

Article 8, as far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime ... .”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as far as relevant, reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”

The Court again observes that the events of which the applicant complains took place prior to 5 May 1998, which is the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia. However, the final decision concerning the applicant ’ s complaint is the decision of the St. Petersburg City Court of 27 May 1998, by which it confirmed the adjournment of the civil claim against the North-Western Transport Prosecution pending the outcome of the criminal case pending against the applicant.

This complaint is also premature because the procedures are still pending. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant ’ s complaints about the length of his detention on remand since 5 May 1998, about the inability to bring proceedings challenging the lawfulness of his detention during the period from 3 June 1999 (Decision of the St. Petersburg City Court) to 26 July 1999 (Decision of the Smolninskiy District Court) and about the speediness of the proceedings to have the lawfulness of his detention examined on appeal against the decision of 26 July 1999.

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Michael O ’ B OYLE Elisabeth P ALM

Registrar President