s down through no fault of the authorities.
168. On the other hand, the Court considers that certain delays were attributable to the domestic authorities. In particular, a delay of more than five months occurred between the applicant's committal for trial on 12 April 2004 and the commencement of the trial on 29 September 2004. Only five hearings were scheduled during that period and all of them were adjourned as the trial court was unable to form a jury that would satisfy both parties. The responsibility for this delay rests with the domestic authorities.
169. The Court further observes that although subsequent hearings were scheduled at regular intervals, many of them had to be adjourned for reasons for which the authorities bore responsibility. Thus, six hearings were rescheduled on logistical grounds or because of the judge's unavailability due to his involvement in another case, illness or leave. Twenty-two hearings did not go ahead because the members of the jury failed to appear and were not replaced by substitutes for unclear reasons. Four more hearings were adjourned at the prosecutor's request. The Court finds, on the basis of the documents in its possession, that the above adjournments resulted in an aggregate delay of approximately one year.
170. Finally, the slow progress of the trial was apparently caused by the conduct of witnesses. Witnesses defaulted on at least twelve occasions, resulting in substantial delays in the proceedings. Indeed, as was submitted by the applicant and not disputed by the Government, in 2004 the trial court examined twenty-eight witnesses over a period of three months and it took it four more years to examine the remaining seventeen witnesses. There is no indication in the case file that the trial court availed itself of the measures existing under national law to discipline the defaulting witnesses and obtain their attendance, to ensure that the case be heard within a reasonable time (see Zementova v. Russia, No. 942/02, § 70, 27 September 2007; Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 34, 8 March 2007; and Sokolov v. Russia, No. 3734/02, § 40, 22 September 2005). The Court finds that the delay occasioned by the witnesses' failure to attend hearings and the trial court's failure to ensure their attendance is attributable to the State.
171. The Court notes that almost five years since the applicant's committal for trial, the trial court has not yet delivered judgment. It also notes that the applicant has spent all those years in custody. In these circumstances, it considers that the length of the proceedings has exceeded a "reasonable time".
172. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
V. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
173. The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd of 30 January 2006. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
174. The Government submitted that both cars indicated in the judgment of 30 January 2006 had been returned to the applicant's mother within six months and two days after the judgment had become final. They considered that the judgment had been enforced within a reasonable time. They further submitted that, after being returned to the applicant's
> 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
