Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Сухов (Sukhov) против России» [англ.]

of the limitation period. In the same decision, the Irkutsk Regional Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the unlawful possession of ammunition because the prosecution had withdrawn the accusations. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 21 July 2005.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

26. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the "reasonable-time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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. Submissions by the parties

27. The Government, citing the Prosecutor General's Office, stated that the applicant's case had been examined by independent and impartial courts within a reasonable time. They acknowledged that there had been occasional delays in the proceedings as a result of "the poor quality of the investigation" and referred, in particular, to the stays of the proceedings from 22 January to 2 November 1998, 1 to 3 March 1999, 2 April 1999 to 27 November 2000, and 24 April and 7 August 2001. However, they contended that those delays had not affected the overall duration of the proceedings. They further submitted that the remaining delays had been caused by objective reasons: the applicant's and his representative's illnesses, and other valid grounds.
28. The applicant contested the Government's submissions. He argued from the outset that the criminal case against him had not been complex as the domestic courts had merely heard testimony from the victim and eight witnesses, authorised one expert examination and studied the case file materials, which mainly comprised records of various investigative steps. The applicant further accepted that he may have contributed up to ten weeks to the overall length of the proceedings in that both he and his lawyer had missed hearings. However, the remaining period of approximately seven years within the Court's competence ratione temporis was, in his view, entirely attributable to the domestic authorities. In particular, he noted the poor quality of the investigation, the constant toing and froing of the case between the courts and the prosecution authorities and the failure of the prosecution witnesses to attend hearings.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

29. The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 5 May 1998, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia. However, 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 ended on 21 July 2005, when the Supreme Court convicted the applicant. It thus lasted approximately seven years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction.
30. 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

31. 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, 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).
32. The Court notes that the parties did not dispute that the case at issue was not particularly difficult t

> 1 2 3 4 5