Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Петр Королев (Petr Korolev) против России» [англ.]

cle 6 § 1 of the Convention
on account of the length of criminal proceedings

54. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The relevant part of the invoked provision 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. Admissibility

55. 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.

B. Merits

56. The Government submitted that the greater part of the length of the criminal proceedings had been attributable to the applicant. In particular, they refer to the lengthy time taken up by the applicant and his counsel to study his case file, as well as numerous incidents of his or his counsel's illness and his requests for adjournment. They further argued that the case had been complex having concerned an accusation of fraud committed in a foreign State and involved multiple evidence in a foreign language. The case also required examination of approximately thirty-four volumes of documents, forty witnesses and three experts. Finally, they contended that the domestic court had not idled, scheduled regular hearings and swiftly examined all procedural matters.
57. The applicant disputed the number of examined witnesses and documents and blamed the prosecution for having added up to the volume of the case.
58. The Court observes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced on 25 November 2002 and ended on 11 March 2008. Accordingly, it took the domestic authorities approximately five years and four months to examine the case at one level of jurisdiction.
59. 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, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities (see, among many other authorities, {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
60. The Court accepts that the applicant's criminal case bore a certain degree of complexity having concerned an allegation of fraud committed in a foreign State and involved a significant amount of evidence in a foreign language. However, it cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justify the overall length of the proceedings (see, among others, Antonov v. Russia (dec.), No. 38020/03, 3 November 2005).
61. As regards the applicant's conduct, the Court takes cognisance of the Government's submission that a large gap in the proceedings occurred when the applicant took time to study the case file and that numerous adjournments happened due to the applicant's illness. The Court accepts that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking advantage of the procedural rights available to him and is satisfied that an illness constitutes an objective factor responsible for the delay. At the same time it is of the opinion that the State cannot bear the responsibility for this either.
62. Insofar as the behaviour of the authorities is concerned, the Court observes that the remittal of the case to the prosecution for correction of defects on two occasions led to a delay of approximately six weeks. The adjournment of two hearings due to the judge's unavailability also did not hold back the proceedings significantly. The Court notes that the authorities demonstrated sufficient diligence in handling the applicant's



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7

	Поделиться:	Tweet