Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Рослов (Roslov) против России» [англ.]

are and awarded him 30,847 roubles.
33. On 1 August 2007 the Regional Court in the final instance awarded the applicant 300,000 roubles as compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of unlawful prosecution.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

34. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which 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

35. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status having obtained compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the national authorities. They also alleged that he had not exhausted the available domestic remedies by failing to complain to higher court instances about the length of the proceedings. In addition, the Government disagreed that the applicant could be understood to complain about the proceedings that continued after the date of his application to the Court.
36. The applicant insisted that he was still a victim of the alleged violation. He did not comment on the rest of the Government's assertions.
37. The Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, "a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a victim, unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (see, among many other authorities, Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
38. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that even though the domestic courts awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage inflicted by criminal proceedings against him, the award was not made in connection with undue length of the proceedings. Therefore, the Court rejects the Government's assertion that the applicant has lost his victim status under the Convention.
39. As to the Government's argument concerning the applicant's alleged failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that according to its previous findings there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings (see Borzhonov v. Russia, No. 18274/04, §§ 36, 22 January 2009). The Government failed to indicate in the present case how complaining to higher judicial authorities could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or otherwise provided him with adequate redress. Nor did they supply any example from domestic practice confirming effectiveness of this measure.
40. Finally, the Court remains unconvinced by the Government's contention that the applicant's complaint concerning the part of the proceedings that took place after the date of his initial application, 1 October 2002, should not be examined. It has been a long-standing practice of the Court that the period covered by the reasonable time guarantee in a particular case runs until the judgment is given by the Court (see, among others, Bordikov v. Russia, No. 921/03, 8 October 2009; Polonskiy v. Russia, No. 30033/05, 19 March 2009).
41. The Court notes that the 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

42. As to the substance of the complaint, the Government contended that the length of the proceedings in the present case had been



> 1 2 3 4 5

	Поделиться:	Tweet