finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see, among many authorities, Rokhlina v. Russia, No. 54071/00, § 81, 7 April 2005). The "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A No. 35).
148. The period to be taken into consideration in the present case began from the date of the applicant's arrest on 18 December 1998 when he was first affected by the "charges" against him. The period in question ended on 10 March 2005, when the applicant's conviction became final. It follows that the period to be taken into consideration lasted six years, two months and twenty-three days. This period spanned the investigation stage and two levels of jurisdiction, the trial court and the court of appeal having examined the case on three occasions.
(b) The reasonableness of the length of proceedings
149. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities. On the latter point, what is at stake for the applicant also has to be taken into consideration (see, among many other authorities, Korshunov v. Russia, No. 38971/06, § 70, 25 October 2007; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 95, 2 March 2006; and Rokhlina, cited above, § 86).
150. The Court accepts that the nature of the charges against the applicant made the trial somewhat complex. However, in the Court's view, the complexity of the case does not suffice, in itself, to account for the length of the proceedings. Moreover, the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko, cited above, § 133, and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 132).
151. Regarding the applicant's conduct, the Court notes that the case was adjourned on several occasions at the applicant's requests (see paragraph 18 above). However, the Court does not agree with the Government that the applicant should be held responsible for the adjournments which were necessary for him to study the case file and the records of the hearings and to arrange for the replacement of representatives whose services he considered ineffective. The applicant was free to take full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in his defence (see Rokhlina, cited above, § 88, and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 129). Furthermore, the Court considers that the delays resulting from the absence of the applicant's representative from the hearings were negligible compared to the overall length of proceedings.
152. Turning to the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Court observes that the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation for the rather substantial periods of inactivity on the part of the domestic court when it came to the examination of the applicant's convictions of 13 June 2000, 14 May 2001 and 17 May 2004 on appeal. In this connection the Court notes that the periods under consideration amounted to five, eight and ten months respectively, and that their aggregate length delayed the proceedings by almost two years.
153. Having regard to the foregoing, and especially to what was at stake for the applicant, given that he had been held in detention throughout the substantial period in which the proceedings were pending, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings in the
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 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
