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

stem in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide cases within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, {Loffler} v. Austria (No. 2), No. 72159/01, § 57, 4 March 2004). In addition, the Court considers it particularly striking that six hearings were adjourned due to the authorities' failure to transport the defendants from the detention facilities to the court-house (see paragraphs 20 and 22 above).
102. The Court furthermore notes that the conduct of the victims and witnesses was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the proceedings. The Court reiterates that the delay occasioned by their failure to attend at least seven hearings and the City Court's failure to discipline them is attributable to the State (see {Kusmierek} v. Poland, No. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004, and Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 34, 8 March 2007). Furthermore, the Court notes that a number of adjournments in the proceedings occurred owing to the lawyer's illness. The Court is mindful that it was not until two weeks before the conviction that the City Court replaced the counsel. The resulting delay could have been avoided had the City Court taken a more active approach and dismissed the counsel earlier. Finally, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the proceedings were pending for almost six months before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Court finds it striking that during that period the Supreme Court only scheduled and held one hearing, on 15 January 2004, the same day as the judgment was issued.
103. Having examined all the material before it and taking into account the overall length of the proceedings, what was at stake for the applicant and the fact that the proceedings were mostly pending before the trial court without apparent progress, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the criminal proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention

104. Lastly, the applicant complained of ill-treatment in a detention facility, about the conditions of his transport to and from the court-house, various procedural defects which had allegedly been committed by the investigating authorities and domestic courts in the course of the criminal proceedings against him, and interference with his correspondence with the relatives.
105. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the evidence discloses no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

106. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

107. The applicant claimed 51,500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the cost of property allegedly confiscated in the course of the criminal proceedings. In addition, he claimed EUR 100,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
108. The Government submitted that the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage was not supported by any evidence. They further stressed that the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was also manifestly ill-founded and should not be granted.
109. The Court observes that there is no causal link between the violations f

> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18