Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 19.03.2009 «Дело Полонский (Polonskiy) против России» [англ.]

missible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

162. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings had been reasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case and the large number of defendants (6) and witnesses (45). The investigation had been prompt, without any periods of inactivity on the part of the investigating team. There had been a delay of several months immediately after the case had been referred for trial, but it had not been attributable to the trial court. It had been impossible for the court to form a jury as both parties kept objecting to the proposed formation. After the commencement of the trial, the hearings had been scheduled at regular intervals, although more than thirty of them had been adjourned due to consistent failures by the defendants' counsel, including the applicant's lawyer, to attend hearings, and due to their repeated requests for adjournments on various grounds. More than ten hearings had been adjourned because defence or prosecution witnesses had not appeared. The trial court had immediately made efforts to obtain their attendance. More than twelve hearings had been adjourned as jurors had not attended due to illness or other reasonable excuses. Only two adjournments had been attributable to the trial court: one hearing had to be rescheduled because of a power cut in the court building, and another hearing had been postponed as the judge had been on leave from 9 July to 21 August 2007. The trial, after having proceeded at a reasonable pace, had already entered into its final phase.
163. The applicant pointed out that the proceedings had lasted so far for more than five years and were still pending at first instance, which period was clearly in excess of a reasonable time. He submitted that although at the beginning the trial had progressed speedily with twenty-eight witnesses being examined in 2004, it had then slowed down. Only three witnesses had been heard by the trial court in 2005, three witnesses in 2006, six witnesses in 2007 and five witnesses in 2008. The trial court had not made any efforts to obtain the attendance of those witnesses who had failed to appear other than by sending repeated summonses to them. Moreover, many hearings had been adjourned due to the jurors' failure to attend. The trial court had refused to replace ailing jurors by substitutes, despite the applicant's request to that effect.
164. 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 (see, among many other authorities, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 95, 2 March 2006).
165. The Court acknowledges that the case was complex as it concerned several counts of robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder allegedly committed by six members of an armed criminal gang. However, in the Court's view, the complexity of the case does not suffice, in itself, to account for the length of the proceedings. Moreover, the fact that the applicant was being held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Korshunov v. Russia, No. 38971/06, § 71, 25 October 2007).
166. The Court notes that neither party provided details of the investigation, which lasted approximately one year. However it accepts that, having regard to the complexity of the case, the length of the investigation was not excessive.
167. Turning to the trial stage of the proceedings, the Court observes that thirty-eight hearings were adjourned at the request of the defence, and that this slowed the proceeding



> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24 ... 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet