ove). Such an analysis should have been particularly prominent in the domestic decisions after the applicant had spent several years in custody; however the reasonable-time test has never been applied.
155. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq.; Khudobin v. Russia, No. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-...; Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX).
156. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to address specific facts or consider alternative "preventive measures" and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities extended the applicant's detention on grounds which, although "relevant", cannot be regarded as "sufficient" to justify its duration of more than five years. In these circumstances it will not be necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with "special diligence". However, the Court will address the Government's argument that the complexity of the applicant's case accounted for the length of the applicant's detention. It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, {Laszkiewicz} v. Poland, No. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008). However, it has already found, in similar circumstances, that the complexity of the case, the number or the conduct of the defendants could not justify more than five years' detention pending investigation and trial (see Erdem v. Germany, No. 38321/97, § 46, ECHR 2001-VII).
157. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
158. The applicant complained that the second set of criminal proceedings against him (the proceedings on the charges of membership of an armed criminal gang, robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder) had been excessively long. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
A. Admissibility
159. 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).
160. The period to be taken into consideration in respect of the criminal proceedings complained of began on 18 April 2003 when the charges of membership of an armed criminal gang, robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder were laid against the applicant. The proceedings are still pending before the trial court. They have thus lasted to date more than five years and months.
161. The Court finds 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 inad
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 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
