Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Горощеня (Goroshchenya) против России» [англ.]

of proceedings was inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. They argued that the delays had been caused by objective reasons: the complexity of the case, the victims', witnesses' and lawyers' failure to attend hearings, the defendants' and counsel's illnesses, the judge's enormous workload and his participation in other unrelated proceedings.
95. The applicant contested the Government's submissions.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

96. The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 4 October 1999, when the applicant was arrested. The period in question ended on 15 January 2004 when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued the final judgment. It thus lasted approximately four years and three months before the investigating authorities and the courts at two levels of jurisdiction.
97. The Court notes that this complaint 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

98. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
99. The Court accepts that the proceedings at issue were complex. However, the Court cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of the proceedings. The Court further reiterates that the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).
100. As to the applicant's conduct, the Government argued that the applicant had to bear the responsibility for an adjournment of one hearing, which was due to his illness. In this connection, the Court notes that according to a summary table of court hearings presented by the Government that adjournment resulted in a one-week stay of the proceedings. Having regard to the overall length of the proceedings, the Court therefore considers the delay caused by the applicant to be negligible.
101. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court is aware of substantial periods of inactivity for which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation and which are attributable to the domestic authorities. The Court is mindful of the fact the case was pending for more than two years and ten months before the St Petersburg City Court. In particular, it took the investigating authorities less than a year to prepare the case for examination by the trial court (see paragraph 7 above). However, after the St Petersburg City Court had received the case file on 7 September 2000, it was not until 24 October 2001 that the first trial hearing was to be held (see paragraph 8 above). The following two hearings were rescheduled due to the judge's participation in other unrelated proceedings, causing an additional delay of almost three months (see paragraph 9 above). An additional aggregated delay of more than five months was caused by the lack of available courtrooms and the judge's involvement in other proceedings (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above). The Court reiterates the Government's argument pertaining to the judge's heavy workload. However, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial sy

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18