fy the overall length of the proceedings. The Court further reiterates that the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, No. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).
114. As to the applicant's conduct, the Government argued that the applicant had to bear the responsibility for a delay in the proceedings because his representative had failed to appear or had applied for an adjournment. In this connection, the Court notes that according to a summary table of court hearings presented by the Government, the applicant's lawyer successfully asked for an adjournment of one hearing in 2003 and failed to attend two hearings in 2004, thus causing an aggregated delay of two months (see paragraphs 33 and 35 above). The Government did not indicate any other period when the proceedings were stayed or any other hearing which was adjourned due to the applicant's or his representative's conduct. Having regard to the overall length of the proceedings, the Court therefore considers the delay caused by the applicant to be negligible.
115. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court is aware of substantial periods of inactivity for which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation and which are attributable to the domestic authorities. The Court observes that an aggregated delay of approximately sixteen months was caused by the referral of the case for additional investigation on four occasions, and by the prosecution authorities' repeated failure to comply with the trial court's orders and to correct procedural defects and a change in the composition of the bench (see paragraphs 14 - 15, 16 - 21, 22, 23 - 25 above). In this respect, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide cases within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, {Loffler} v. Austria (No. 2), No. 72159/01, § 57, 4 March 2004). Another delay of over three months was caused by the judge's illness and his involvement in other unrelated proceedings.
116. The Court furthermore notes that the conduct of the applicant's co-accused and their counsel, the victims and witnesses was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the proceedings. The Court reiterates that the delay occasioned by their failure to attend at least thirty hearings and the Supreme Court's failure to discipline them is attributable to the State (see {Kusmierek} v. Poland, No. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004, and Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 34, 8 March 2007). The Court is mindful of the Government's argument that the domestic authorities undertook "certain steps" to expedite the proceedings. However, the Government did not explain what steps had been taken. Furthermore, without accepting the veracity of the Government's argument, the Court observes that even if such measures had, in fact, been applied, their effectiveness would appear to be open to doubt as counsel, witnesses and victims failed to attend hearings throughout the entire period the trial proceedings were pending.
117. Having examined all the material before it and taking into account the overall length of the proceedings, what was at stake for the applicant and the fact that the proceedings were pending for the substantial part before the trial court without apparent progress, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the first set of the criminal proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
V. Application of Article 41 of the
> 1 2 3 ... 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
