Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Бордиков (Bordikov) против России» [англ.]

suspicion that the applicant committed the offences he had been charged with, being based on cogent evidence, persisted throughout the trial leading to his conviction.
91. As regards the danger of the applicant's absconding, the Court observes that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient after a certain lapse of time to justify continued detention based on the danger of flight (see Wemhoff v. Germany, cited above, § 14, and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 44, Series A No. 175). In the instant case, however, the domestic courts also relied on other relevant circumstances, noting that the applicant had absconded on several occasions in the past. In particular, the investigation was suspended for almost three years when the applicant failed to appear for questioning and the authorities could not establish his whereabouts in 1995 (see paragraphs 9 - 10 above). Furthermore, in 2001 the applicant's name was again put on the wanted persons' list when the authorities failed to establish his whereabouts in order to remand him in custody (see paragraphs 17 - 18 above).
92. The Court is therefore satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, a substantial risk of the applicant's absconding persisted throughout his detention and accepts the domestic courts' finding that no other measures to secure his presence would have been appropriate. It does not consider it necessary to examine whether the applicant could have interfered with the administration of justice by putting pressure on witnesses.
93. The Court concludes that there were relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant's continued detention. Accordingly, it remains to be ascertained whether the judicial authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings.
94. The Court observes, and it was not disputed by the parties, that no delay in the proceedings was attributable to the domestic authorities, which displayed the necessary diligence throughout the proceedings. The Court notes that, following the applicant's placement in custody on 13 September 2001, the District Court scheduled hearings regularly. There were no significant periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court. The trial was adjourned - except for two instances when the witnesses were absent - only on account of the applicant's or his counsel's illness or the latter's failure to appear. In such circumstances, the competent judicial authorities cannot be said to have displayed a lack of special diligence in handling the applicant's case.
95. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

III. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention

96. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case had been excessive. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."

A. The parties' submissions

97. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings had been reasonable, having regard to the placement of the applicant on the list of fugitives, the consistent failures by the applicant and his counsel to attend the hearings, the prolonged illness of the applicant and the applicant's request for additional time to study the case file.
98. The applicant contested the Government's arguments, maintaining that, even taking into account his own conduct, the overall period of the criminal proceedings in his case remained excessive.

B. The Court's assessment

99. The Court observes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant laste

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14