. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 204). The Court deplores the fact that the appeals against the above detention orders were examined only after a fresh detention order had been issued by the Regional Court. Although it was apparently open to the applicant to lodge applications for release during the intervening periods of time, the availability of such recourse did not absolve the national authorities from their obligation to decide "speedily" on the validity of an extension order (see Starokadomskiy v. Russia, No. 42239/02, § 85, 31 July 2008, with further references).
135. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
V. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
136. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The relevant part of that provision 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. Admissibility
137. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies because the proceedings had still been pending when the applicant lodged the application with the Court.
138. The Court reiterates that complaints concerning length of proceedings can be brought before it before the final termination of the proceedings in question (see Chevkin v. Russia, No. 4171/03, § 29, 15 June 2006). It follows that the Government's objection must be dismissed.
139. 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.
B. Merits
1. Submissions by the parties
140. The applicant indicated that the delays in 2006 were attributable to the authorities. Few hearings were held in 2007 and 2008 (see paragraph 32 above). The applicant's counsel attended all hearings, except in December 2007 due to his illness. The proceedings were delayed because the trial judge had been on leave twice in 2007 and because certain witnesses had failed to appear. Between December 2007 and March 2008 the applicant had lodged eighteen applications, none of which had resulted in an adjournment.
141. The Government submitted that the criminal case was particularly complex, in view of the number of co-accused and episodes of drug trafficking. New episodes accumulated (more than thirty) and were investigated within the proceedings pending against the applicant and another person. The latter was prosecuted in relation to more than forty episodes of drug trafficking and money laundering. The drug trafficking charges concerned criminal activities within two regions and two types of drugs. The investigation was rendered difficult by the fact that certain witnesses were living in another region; the whereabouts of some of them were difficult to establish and they retracted their earlier statements. The case was returned to the prosecutor on three occasions. The applicant and his counsel delayed the proceedings, in particular when they studied the case for the second time between June and September 2006, and lodged unsubstantiated applications at the trial. Hearings were scheduled every month.
2. The Court's assessment
142. 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 and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among other authorities
> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24 25 ... 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
