tion of his appeal against that detention order. The Government did not indicate any particular instance when the applicant had in any way caused a delay in those proceedings. The Court therefore considers that the impugned period cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, No. 29462/95, §§ 85 - 86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").
105. The Court also notes that the fact that the applicant was found guilty of a criminal offence and that the duration of his pre-trial detention counted towards his sentence cannot in principle justify the failure to examine speedily his applications for release or his appeals against the detention orders (see Bednov v. Russia, No. 21153/02, § 33, 1 June 2006).
106. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
107. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings was 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. Submissions by the parties
108. The Government considered that the complaint of excessive length of proceedings was inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. They argued that the delays had been caused by objective reasons: the complexity of the case, the victims', witnesses' and lawyers' failure to attend hearings, the co-defendant's and counsel's illnesses, the judge's illness and his participation in other unrelated proceedings. The Government, without providing further details and citing the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, further submitted that the domestic authorities had undertaken steps to expedite the proceedings: "had taken steps to ensure the witnesses' attendance and made changes in legal representation." At the same time the Government accepted that a certain delay in the proceedings had been caused by the three referrals of the case for an additional investigation.
109. The applicant contested the Government's submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
110. The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 22 January 2000, when the applicant was arrested. The period in question ended on 25 August 2004 when the Supreme Court of Tyva Republic convicted the applicant. It thus lasted approximately four years and seven months before the investigating authorities and the trial court.
111. The Court notes that this 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.
2. Merits
112. 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 conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
113. The Court accepts that the proceedings at issue were complex. However, the Court cannot accept that the complexity of the case, taken on its own, was such as to justi
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
