used's appearance at the trial when deciding whether he or she should be released or detained. Indeed, the provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, No. 55939/00, § 64 in fine, 15 February 2005, and {Jablonski}, cited above, § 83). On the facts, the domestic courts in the present case should have seriously considered such a possibility not on 14 August 2002, some two years and two months after the applicant's arrest, but much earlier.
89. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq.; Khudobin v. Russia, No. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX).
90. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to address specific facts or consider alternative "preventive measures", by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and, on one occasion, by failing to provide any grounds at all, the authorities extended the applicant's detention without giving "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons to justify its more than two-year duration. In these circumstances it is not necessary to examine under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention whether the proceedings were conducted with "special diligence".
91. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
92. Lastly, the applicant also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings in his case and alleged various defects in the investigation and trial proceedings. The applicant was further dissatisfied with his alleged inability to bring appeal proceedings against the decision of 6 December 2000.
93. As regards the length complaint, the Court notes at the outset that the period to be taken into consideration began on 2 June 2000, when the investigator brought criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, § 124, ECHR 2002-VI), and ended on 4 September 2002 with the judgment of the Military Court of the Tyumen Garrison (see paragraph 49). It follows that the period to be taken into consideration lasted for two years, three months and three days. The Court reiterates in the first place that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, amongst many others, {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
94. The Court considers that the present case was rather complex, involving two co-accused and several counts of crimes, including fraud, theft, abuse of power and obstructing the course of justice and the preliminary investigation. As regards the applicant's conduct, there is no indication in the case file that he contributed noticeably to the length of the criminal proceedings. In so far as the conduct of the authorities is concerned, the conduct of the investigation was reasonably fast, ending within just five months.
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
