awyer had not claimed that he had been deprived of an opportunity to be present at the appeal hearing. Furthermore, the Rostov Regional Court had had reasonable grounds to assume that the applicant would not attend appeal hearings in the future because he could not be obliged to do so. The appeal court had had a duty to ensure a reasonable balance of the rights of the applicant and other parties to the proceedings. The applicant's presence at a hearing would imperil his health. Further postponements of a hearing would render the proceedings lengthier. In sum, the Government argued that the applicant's absence at the appeal hearing of 30 September 2003 had not been in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.
69. Lastly, the Government asserted that the domestic courts had examined the criminal case against the applicant within a "reasonable time". A considerable part of the proceedings had taken place prior to the date of ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation, namely 5 May 1998. The criminal case had been rather complicated, as proven by a quashing of the applicant's acquittal. The investigation had experienced difficulties when obtaining and assessing the evidence. In the Government's submissions, the applicant had been responsible for four hundred and twenty-six days of delay in examination of the case, as hearings had been postponed because of his illness. The lawyers' inability to appear before the courts had caused in total a delay of sixteen days. Some delays had occurred because of the victim's and witnesses' absence. A delay of two years and six months had been caused by the search for the applicant's co-accused. The applicant's counsel, Mr K., had not appealed against the decision not to proceed with the case in Mr P.'s absence; on the contrary, he had requested the first-instance court to suspend the proceedings until Mr P. could be found. The proceedings had been time-consuming owing to the need to secure the applicant's rights to a fair trial.
2. The applicant
70. The applicant maintained his complaints. He submitted that the Rostov Regional Court had used confidential medical data concerning his state of health against his interests. Furthermore, the decision to hold an appeal hearing in his absence had been based on medical information but not on any legal provision. The applicant emphasised that he had been deprived of his right to be present at the appeal hearing in the proceedings against him.
71. The applicant also stated that at some point during the court proceedings he had been in a wheelchair. The building of the Rostov Regional Court was not equipped with ramps for disabled persons' access, which had been one of the reasons for the applicant's inability to attend the appeal court's sessions.
72. The applicant further submitted that the proceedings against him had been pending from 10 July 1995 until 30 September 2003, that is for more than eight years. He contested the Government's assertion that the case was complicated. The charges against Mr P. had been subject to a separate set of criminal proceedings and thus could not have influenced the course of the proceedings against the applicant.
73. In sum, the applicant concluded that his right to a public trial within a reasonable time and his defence rights had not been respected.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
74. As to the Government's claim that the application was introduced out of time, the Court reiterates that, under Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court, "the date of introduction of the application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
