Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Московец (Moskovets) против России» [англ.]

le duration of the proceedings.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

105. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) Period to be taken into consideration
106. The Court notes 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, among many authorities, Rokhlina, cited above, § 81).
107. The period to be taken into consideration in the present case began on 25 December 1999 when the applicant was arrested and suspicion of several counts of murder was raised against him and ended on 30 September 2004 when his conviction became final. It follows that the period to be taken into consideration has lasted four years, nine months and seven days. Throughout this period the case spanned the investigation stage and two levels of jurisdiction.
(b) The reasonableness of the length of proceedings
108. The Court reiterates that 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. On the latter point, what is at stake for the applicant has also to be taken into consideration (see, among many other authorities, Korshunov v. Russia, No. 38971/06, § 70, 25 October 2007; Rokhlina, cited above, § 86; and Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 95, 2 March 2006).
109. The Court accepts that the involvement of several co-defendants in the proceedings and the seriousness of the charges against them in itself made the trial complex. However, in the Court's view, the complexity of the case does not suffice, in itself, to account for the length of the proceedings.
110. The Court notes that the applicant does not appear to have caused any delays in the proceedings. Moreover, the fact that he was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko, cited above, § 133, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).
111. On the other hand, several manifest delays in the proceedings were caused by the conduct of the domestic authorities. The Court observes, in particular, that on 25 April 2001 the City Court referred the case for an additional investigation owing to serious breaches of the procedure. The resulting delay of eight months (from 25 April 2001 to 25 December 2001) could have been avoided had the relevant domestic authorities complied more strictly with the rules set out in the domestic law.
112. After the case was submitted to the City Court on 25 December 2001, the first hearing was scheduled for 5 August 2002. The Government explained the resulting seven months' delay by the heavy workload of the judge and the necessity to select the lay judges. In this respect the Court recalls that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision within a reasonable time (see {Loffler} v. Austria, No. 30546/96, § 21, 3 October 2000, and Bakhitov v. Russia, No. 4026/03, § 29, 4 December 2008). The Court also deplores the fact that although the domestic authorities were made aware of the applicant's preference as to the composition of



> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18 ... 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet