Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 "Дело "Облов (Oblov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

e proceedings (see, among others, Kobtsev v. Ukraine, No. 7324/02, § 44, 4 April 2006). Thus, the Government's objection is dismissed.
21. The Court notes 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 inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

22. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day on which a person is "charged" within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term. It ends on the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, § 124, ECHR 2002-VI). The period to be taken into consideration in the present case began on 10 May 1998, when the applicant was arrested and taken into custody, and ended on 31 May 2006. The Court observes, however, that it is appropriate to take into account only the periods when the case was actually pending before the courts, that is, the periods when there was no effective judgment in the applicant's case and when the authorities were under an obligation to determine the charge against him within a "reasonable time" (see Rokhlina v. Russia, No. 54071/00, § 82, 7 April 2005). Accordingly, the period from 28 August 2000, when the applicant's first conviction became final, to 9 February 2001, when it was quashed, is not taken into account. The same applies to the period from 18 April 2002 to 10 June 2005. It follows that the total length of the proceedings to be taken into consideration amounted to approximately four years and five months.
23. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, {Pelissier} and Sassi v. France [GC], No. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
24. In that connection, it is observed that an accused in criminal proceedings, especially when he is a minor or remains in detention pending investigation and/or trial, should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence and Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 48864/99, 3 December 2002). The Court considers that much was at stake for the applicant in the present case, bearing in mind that he risked imprisonment and was detained several times pending the proceedings.
25. The Court considers on the basis of the information submitted by the parties that the case was not particularly complex and that no significant delays can be attributed to the applicant.
26. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court observes that the District Court started to deal with the case only in 2000, after nearly two years of preliminary investigation. A considerable part of that period the applicant spent in detention. In particular, the Court observes that the preparation of the first forensic report took nearly five months. However, there is no indication that that length was due to the complexity of the issues put before the expert or to other circumstances of the case. The Court reiterates in this respect that the principal responsibility for delay due to expert opinions rests ultimately with the State (see Marchenko v. Russia, No. 29510/04, § 38, 5 October 2006, with further references). Accordingly, these periods are imputable to the State.
27. The Court also notes that the length of the proceedings was also due to the fact that the criminal case against the applicant was re-examined several t



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet