Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 "Дело "Казюлин (Kazyulin) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

to have his criminal case examined within a reasonable time. In particular, the Judiciary Qualification Board had imposed a disciplinary sanction on Judge V. for her failure to ensure the attendance of participants in the criminal proceedings, including the applicant. The applicant had had a possibility to complain about the delayed examination of his case to other judicial bodies, but he had not lodged any requests to speed up the examination of his case or requested the domestic court to summon the witnesses and victim to the hearings. He had himself contributed to the length of the proceedings.
38. The applicant maintained his complaint.
39. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see {Kudla} v. Poland, No. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). Furthermore, an effective remedy required by Article 13 of the Convention is intended to be capable of either expediting the proceedings or providing the applicant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see {Kudla}, cited above, §§ 157 - 159).
40. The Court finds that even if the decision of the Judiciary Qualification Board imposing a disciplinary measure on the judge could be considered as a measure intended to expedite proceedings in the applicant's case, it did not provide the applicant with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred. The Court notes that the Government did not indicate any other remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Klyakhin v. Russia, No. 46082/99, §§ 101 - 102, 30 November 2004, and Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 39, 8 March 2007).
41. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicant had no domestic remedy under domestic law whereby he could enforce his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

42. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

43. The applicant claimed 10 million Russian roubles in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
44. The Government contested that claim.
45. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. However, the amount claimed appears to be excessive. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him 6,700 euros under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

46. The applicant did not submit any claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under that head.

C. Default interest

47. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings against the applicant;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of absence of an effective remedy against the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings;



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet