Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Штейн (Shteyn (Stein)) против России» [англ.]

, {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 48864/99, 3 December 2002). The Court considers that much was at stake for the applicant in the present case, bearing in mind that he risked imprisonment and was detained pending the proceedings.
143. The Court observes that the period under consideration in the present case began on 9 December 2004, when the applicant was arrested, and ended on 5 March 2009, when the appeal decision was issued. It follows that the criminal proceedings against the applicant have lasted for more than four years during which the applicant has remained detained. The Court has examined the applicant's complaint, bearing in mind that it essentially concerned the trial proceedings (see Dawson v. Ireland (dec.), No. 21826/02, 8 July 2004). He made no submissions in relation to the investigative stage of the proceedings. The Court finds no reason to hold that there were any unjustified substantial delays during the investigation.
144. The trial proceedings lasted from 23 January 2006 to 30 July 2008, that is for two years and nearly six months. They were followed by the appeal proceedings, which ended on 5 March 2009.
145. The Court accepts that the case revealed a certain degree of complexity; it concerned four defendants who had been charged with several counts of serious criminal offences. While admitting that the task of the national authorities was rendered more difficult by these factors, the Court cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, is such as to justify the length of the proceedings.
146. As to the applicant's conduct, the Court reiterates that an applicant cannot be required to co-operate actively with the judicial authorities, nor can he be criticised for having made full use of the remedies available under the domestic law in the defence of his interests (see, among others, Rokhlina, cited above, § 88). The Court cannot uphold the Government's argument that the applicant went beyond the limits of legitimate defence by lodging unsubstantiated requests. It appears that the absence or illness of the applicant's counsel was the cause of a short delay. On balance, the Court finds that the applicant has not contributed significantly to the length of the proceedings.
147. On the other hand, the Court considers that certain delays were attributable to the domestic authorities, in particular those following the decisions of the judge in 2006 to return the case to the prosecutor. The Court also observes that only one fully fledged hearing was held in 2006 and that there were few hearings between April and October 2007. The Government did not substantiate their argument that certain delays were due to the fact that certain witnesses detained in other towns had to be brought to trial hearings. The appeal proceedings pended for more than seven months. Neither does the Court lose sight of the fact that throughout the proceedings the applicant remained in custody and so in cramped conditions, as the Court has held above (see paragraphs 81 and 123 above).
148. It is true that Article 6 commands that judicial proceedings be expeditious, but it also lays down the more general principle of the proper administration of justice (see Boddaert v. Belgium, 12 October 1992, § 39, Series A No. 235-D). However, in the circumstances of the case, the Court is not satisfied that the conduct of the authorities was consistent with the fair balance which has to be struck between the various aspects of this fundamental requirement.
149. Making an overall assessment, the Court concludes that in the circumstances of the case the "reasonable ti

> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25 26