Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 "Дело "Казюлин (Kazyulin) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

ot had an effective remedy in that respect. Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] 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."

A. Admissibility

29. The Court notes that those complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Period to be considered

30. The Court observes that criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced on 14 August 1995. However, the Court only has competence ratione temporis to examine the period after 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of the proceedings at the time. The period in question has not ended yet. Therefore, the proceedings have so far lasted more than eleven years at one level of jurisdiction.

2. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings

31. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings in the present case had been reasonable. The examination of the case had been complicated by the serious nature of the charges against the applicant and by difficulties in summoning witnesses. The applicant and his counsel had contributed to delays in the proceedings by repeatedly failing to attend the hearings. The case had been adjourned several times on objective grounds, such as failure of different persons to attend hearings, examination of the applicant's motions and remittals of the case for additional investigation. After lodging his complaint with the Court, the applicant had intentionally failed to attend the hearings.
32. The applicant maintained his complaint. He admitted that he had not attended several hearings. However, he claimed that he had informed the District Court of the reasons for his absences.
33. 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 complexity of the case and 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).
34. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see {Pelissier} and Sassi, cited above, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, No. 42987/98, §§ 86 - 97, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts); Chrysoula Aggelopoulou v. Greece, No. 30293/05, §§ 16 - 19, 4 December 2008; and Sarantidis v. Greece, No. 23163/07, §§ 25 - 27, 5 February 2009).
35. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
36. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

3. Lack of effective remedy in respect of the length
of the proceedings

37. The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had taken due measures to protect the applicant's right

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11