of the Convention
on account of the length of the proceedings
143. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in its relevant part, as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
The applicant further claimed that he had no effective remedy at his disposal for the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
A. Submissions by the parties
144. The Government submitted that the present case represented a certain complexity given the nature of the charges against the applicant. On many occasions the hearings were adjourned at the applicant's initiative or through his fault. Quite a number of adjournments were also caused by factors beyond the authorities' control, such as illnesses of the co-defendants, failure of the representatives to appear before the court, the appointment of new representatives by co-defendants, the need for co-defendants and representatives to study the material of the case file, absences of the victims and witnesses, and so on. The Government acknowledged the responsibility of the domestic authorities for the adjournment of the hearing from 10 January to 12 January 2001 in that they had failed to deliver the defendants to the court, which did not cause any significant delay in the proceedings. They concluded that the length of the proceedings in the present case did not breach the "reasonable time" requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As to the complaint under Article 13, the Government submitted that the applicant was afforded ample opportunities to bring complaints against the length of the proceedings before the relevant judiciary qualification board, the prosecutor or the court, and the domestic authorities did not hinder the exercise of the applicant's right in any way.
145. The applicant submitted that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted six years and three months: from 18 December 1998 to 10 March 2005. During this time the domestic court passed three sentences, two of which were found unlawful and quashed on appeal. The complexity of the case could not by itself justify the overall length of the proceedings. Victims and witnesses caused considerable delays to the proceedings by failing to appear, and it took the Regional Court some time to take appropriate measures in this respect. The applicant's full use of the resources afforded by law in his defence could not be held against him. In particular, the necessity to replace representatives appointed by the State was caused by the poor quality of their performance. The applicant also maintained his complaint under Article 13. He submitted, in particular, that the Government had not explained how bringing complaints to the judiciary qualification board, the prosecutor or the court could have expedited the proceedings or how he could have obtained adequate redress for the delays that had already occurred.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
146. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) Period to be taken into consideration
147. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is "charged" within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term. It ends with the day on which a charge is
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
