pplicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. On the same day he was taken into custody. On 28 August 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.
B. First supervisory review and retrial
10. On 9 February 2001 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the previous judgments by way of supervisory review because the applicant had not been properly served with a copy of the bill of indictment. A retrial was ordered. On 28 April 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. On 19 June 2001 the Supreme Court set this judgment aside on appeal and remitted the case for re-examination by the District Court. The appeal court established that the trial court had not properly assessed the evidence and had erred in its factual findings.
11. On 14 September 2001 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. It found, inter alia, that the prosecutor had unlawfully prevented the applicant's counsel from representing him. It appears that the Supreme Court quashed this decision on 25 October 2001.
12. On 28 November 2001 the District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him for a period of time corresponding to the one already served. The applicant was released on the same day. On 25 December 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 28 November 2001 due to certain procedural defects and remitted the case for examination by another district court.
13. On 11 March 2002 the Bichurskiy District Court of the Buryatia Republic found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. The applicant was taken into custody. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment on 18 April 2002. On an unspecified date the applicant was released.
C. Second supervisory review and retrial
14. Upon the applicant's request, on 10 June 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 11 March and 18 April 2002 by way of supervisory review for procedural irregularities and remitted the case to the Mukhorshibirskiy District Court.
15. On 18 November 2005 the District Court acquitted the applicant. On 2 March 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the acquittal and ordered a retrial.
16. By a decision of 29 March 2006 the President of the Supreme Court transferred the case for trial by the Tarbagatayskiy District Court of the Buryatia Republic. On 31 May 2006 the District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the expiry of the limitation period.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
17. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which 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..."
18. The Government submitted that the case had been re-examined several times in the applicant's interest and no significant period of inactivity could be attributed to the investigating authorities or courts. The proceedings had been discontinued in May 2006.
19. The applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
20. In so far as the Government can be understood to be arguing that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of the Convention in view of the discontinuation of the proceedings, the Court reiterates that an acquittal or a fortiori termination of the proceedings does not in itself deprive the person concerned of victim status in respect of a complaint about the allegedly excessive length of thos
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 ... 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
