Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.02.2010 «Дело Сычев (Sychev) против России» [англ.]

It is true that there was a period of inactivity in the examination of the applicant's case by the trial court between 20 April and 17 December 2001, which was unaccounted for by the respondent Government. The Court considers that such a delay in the conduct of the hearing could have been minimised. However, the Court reiterates that a delay at some stage may be tolerated if the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be deemed excessive (see, for example, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A No. 71, and {Posedel-Jelinovic} v. Croatia, No. 35915/02, § 26, 24 November 2005).
95. The foregoing considerations lead the Court to conclude that the total duration of the proceedings of two years, three months and three days does not give rise to any appearance of a violation of the reasonable-time requirement in Article 6 § 1. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
96. As to the remaining complaints, the Court notes that the applicant did not appeal against the trial court judgment (see paragraph 49) or the decision dated 26 August 2002 (see paragraph 48). It follows that he failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his grievances about the alleged deficiencies in the criminal proceedings against him. His allegation about the inability to bring appeal proceedings against the decision of 6 December 2000 is unsubstantiated, as it is clear from the case file that the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 6 December 2000 and that it was examined by the court on 11 January 2001 (see paragraph 22 and 24).
97. Overall, the Court finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

98. 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."
99. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention on remand between 31 August 2001 and 14 August 2002 and the length of the applicant's detention on remand admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand from 31 August 2001 to 14 August 2002;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the length of the applicant's detention on remand.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 February 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Josep CASADEVALL
President

Santiago QUESADA
Registrar

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12