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

o determine. It sees no reason to conclude otherwise. Consequently, it takes the view that an overall period of more than seven years could not, in itself, be deemed to satisfy the "reasonable-time" requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
33. As to the applicant's conduct, the parties appear to be in agreement that he had added ten additional weeks to the overall length of the proceedings owing to both his own and his lawyer's failure to attend certain hearings. Irrespective of the reasons for their absence from those hearings, the Court finds that the resulting delay was negligible having regard to the overall length of the proceedings.
34. As regards the conduct of the authorities, there were substantial periods of inactivity for which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation and which are attributable to the domestic authorities. The Court notes the Government's acknowledgement that an aggregate delay of approximately two and a half years was attributed to the "poor quality of the investigation", in particular, the investigating authorities' arbitrary decisions to stay the proceedings (see paragraph 27 above). Another delay of over a year and three months resulted from the transfers of the case between the Regional Court and the prosecution authorities (see paragraphs 13 - 16 above). Nor can the Court overlook the fact that on 29 October 2003, that is almost three years after the trial had commenced, the Regional Court decided to change the composition of the bench, which resulted in the trial having to restart (see paragraph 18 above). In this respect, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system 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). The Court observes that the principle responsibility for the delay caused by the change in the composition of the Regional Court rests ultimately with the State (see Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 32, 8 March 2007).
35. The Court further notes that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the proceedings. It reiterates that the delay occasioned by their failure to attend at least five hearings and the Regional Court's failure to discipline them is attributable to the State (see {Kusmierek} v. Poland, No. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004).
36. Having examined all the material before it and taking into account the overall length of the proceedings and what was at stake for the applicant, 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.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

37. The applicant further complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully arrested in 1997 and detained for several months in poor conditions, that his office had been searched and his service weapon seized, that his lawyer had not been allowed to attend the interview on 25 July 1997 and that he had not been assisted by counsel until January 1998, that the investigative authorities and the trial court had committed various procedural violations, misinterpreted the domestic law and incorrectly assessed the evidence before them and that he had not been served with certain documents.
38. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence ratione temporis, the Court finds that the evidence discloses no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its P

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5