d from 20 March 1995 until 1 July 2003, that is, over eight years and three months, of which approximately five years and two months fall within its competence ratione temporis. This period spanned the investigation stage and the judicial proceedings, where the courts reviewed the applicant's case twice, his conviction having been quashed on appeal and the case remitted for fresh examination. However, from 5 June to 13 September 2001 the applicant was unlawfully at large. That period should be excluded from the overall length of proceedings (see Girolami v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 13, Series A No. 196-E). Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration amounted to approximately four years and eleven months. The Court is mindful of the fact that the proceedings had been pending before the prosecutor's office for three years before 5 May 1998. During most of this time, however, the applicant had been unlawfully at large.
100. The Court reiterates 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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities (see, among many other authorities, {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
101. The Court accepts that the proceedings against the applicant involved a certain degree of complexity. The applicant was charged with several counts of possessing and selling drugs and one count of illegal possession of ammunition.
102. As regards the applicant's conduct, the Court takes cognisance of the Government's argument that the proceedings were mainly adjourned on account of the applicant's illness, his counsel's failure to appear or the applicant's requests for additional time to study the case file - that is, from 15 September to 14 December 1999, from 23 February to 15 March 2000, from 8 June 2000 to 17 May 2001, from 3 October 2001 to 29 January 2002, and from 26 February 2002 to 8 May 2003.
103. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a cumulative delay of two years and nine months in the proceedings can be attributable to the applicant.
104. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that except for a five-month delay caused by the omissions in the investigation and the judge's involvement in other proceedings (see paragraphs 11 - 12), the authorities demonstrated sufficient diligence in handling the proceedings. The hearings were held regularly and the adjournments, as noted above, were normally for reasons not attributable to the court.
105. Making an overall assessment of the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the total length of the proceedings, the Court considers that the latter did not go beyond what may be considered reasonable in this particular case.
106. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
107. 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
108. The applicant claimed 108,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
109. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicant's rights as set out in the Convention. In any event, they considered the applicant's claims excessive and suggested that the acknowledgment of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction.
110. The Court observes that the applicant spent almost a y
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
