ernment further argued that the length of the proceedings had been accounted for by the complexity of the case, the number of defendants (six) and witnesses (more than 200), and the number of case documents (68 binders). Forty-five searches, ninety-nine seizures, 209 inspections and twenty-three expert examinations had been carried out by the investigation team. The trial hearings had been scheduled at regular intervals; however some of them had been adjourned due to the applicant's illness.
159. The applicant maintained his claims.
160. As regards the Government's preliminary objection relating to the fact that the proceedings were pending, the Court observes that after this objection had been raised the proceedings ended with a final judgment. Accordingly, the Court does not find it necessary to examine it. Nor is it necessary to examine the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the applicant's complaint about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings must in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons stated below.
161. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is "charged" within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term. It ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see Rokhlina, cited above, § 81). In the present case the period to be taken into consideration began on 22 November 2005, when the charges were laid against the applicant. It ended on 26 January 2009, when the St Petersburg City Court gave the final judgment in the case. The proceedings thus lasted for approximately three years and two months.
162. 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 (see, among many other authorities, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 95, 2 March 2006).
163. The Court acknowledges that the case was very complex. It concerned unlawful business activities carried out by several companies over a long period of time. During the investigation, which lasted for one year and ten months, the investigation team questioned more than 200 witnesses and performed a considerable number of searches, inspections and expert examinations. There is no evidence of any significant periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecution authorities. Having regard to the complexity of the case, the length of the investigation was not excessive.
164. Turning to the trial stage, the Court observes that the trial proceeded with no substantial delays, with the hearings being scheduled and held at regular intervals. It takes note of the fact there was a delay in January 2008 which was attributable to the authorities. Indeed, the hearings of 14, 21 and 28 January 2008 were postponed because the applicant could not be transported to the courtroom due to the unavailability of transport fit for his condition (see paragraph 13 above). However, the delay incurred as a result was negligible. On the other hand, there were circumstances that slowed the proceedings down through no fault of the authorities, such as the applicant's hospitalisation which prevented him from attending the hearings in November and December 2007, and counsel's leave in July and August 2008 (see paragraphs 12 and 16 above). Given that the trial was completed within a year, its length cannot be said to have been unreasonable.
165. Finally, the Court notes that the appeal proceedings lasted for approximately four months, which does not appear excessive.
166. Making an overall asse
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
