|
Стр. 7
order of 9 January 2002;
- the failure to consider the merits of his appeals against the
decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
209. The Court, of its own motion, raised the question whether
the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was
compatible with the "reasonable-time" requirement of Article 6 з 1
of the Convention, which provides, in the relevant part, as
follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him,
everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by
[a]... tribunal..."
1. The parties' submissions
210. The Government submitted that the length of the
proceedings had been reasonable, having regard to the volume of
the case (22 binders), the large number of defendants (21) and
witnesses (over 100), the use of interpreters, consistent failures
by the defendants' counsel, including the applicant's lawyer, to
attend hearings and their repeated requests for adjournments on
various grounds.
211. The applicant contended that only 12 of the binders
concerned the merits of the charges, while the others only
included procedural documents. The investigators had "artificially
inflated" the volume of the case-file because they had charged all
the defendants with serious criminal offences without a sufficient
factual basis. In the applicant's view, the prosecution's decision
to drop a number of the charges during the final pleadings and his
acquittal by the court of the remainder confirmed that allegation.
Contrary to the Government's submissions, the actual number of
witnesses was 61, each of whom was called to the witness stand for
fifteen minutes only. As to the interpreters, it was precisely
because of the domestic authorities' failure to make
interpretation available in good time that it had become necessary
to return the case for an additional investigation with the
resultant delay in the proceedings. As to the lawyers' conduct,
the applicant indicated that on extremely rare occasions the case
had been adjourned due to his lawyer's absence and, in any event,
he had consented to the continuation of the proceedings without
his lawyer's presence.
212. The applicant submitted that the domestic authorities'
conduct had caused the most significant delays in the proceedings:
copies of procedural decisions had been handed over to the
defendants several weeks after the expiry of the time-limits. It
had taken the trial court 96 days to fix the first hearing and the
interval between hearings had sometimes been as long as 27 days.
The time it had taken for the case file to be transferred between
the Vladimir Regional Court and the Supreme Court was excessive,
ranging from 25 to 40 days. Finally, between 10 July 2003 and 15
March 2004 the trial could have fixed a tighter schedule of
hearings so as to avoid delays that had ranged from two to ten
days.
2. The Court's assessment
213. The period to be taken into consideration in the present
case began on 22 January 1999 when the applicant was taken into
custody. It ended on 21 March 2005 when the Supreme Court handed
down the appeal decisions. The proceedings thus lasted six years
and two months.
214. The Court acknowledges that the case was of a certain
complexity as it concerned a substantial number of drug-related
offences allegedly committed by more than twenty defendants. The
need to use interpreters to and from the Uzbek and Tajik languages
was a further complicating factor. However, in the Court's view,
the complexity of the case does not suffice, in itself, to account
for the length of the proceedings.
215. The Government's submissions about the persistent absence
of counsel were not sufficiently detailed - they omitted to
indicate the dates of absences or, at least, the number of times
counsel had been absent - or supported by evidence, such as
excerpts from the trial record. The Court considers therefore that
their allegation that the delays were mainly attributable to the
applicant's own conduct has not been made out.
216. On the other hand, the Court finds that the main cause of
the delays was the conduct of the domestic authorities: on three
occasions the trial court had to return the case to the pre-trial
stage to enable the investigators to remedy the breaches of the
defendants' rights, such as the absence of translation, which made
consideration of the merits impossible. In this context the Court
refers to its finding under Article 5 з 3 of the Convention that
the domestic authorities failed to act with the necessary
diligence in conducting the applicant's proceedings (see paragraph
188 above). That finding is likewise valid in respect of the
length of the criminal proceedings as such.
217. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that
the length of the proceedings did not satisfy the "reasonable-
time" requirement. Accordingly, there has been a breach of Article
6 з 1 of the Convention.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
218. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the
Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of
the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial
reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just
satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Pecuniary damage
219. The applicant claimed 14,700,000 US dollars (USD)
representing capital losses during the period he was detained. He
submitted that, as a result of the unlawful seizure of his
company's documents and seal by the Russian law-enforcement
authorities, he had lost control of his business and had been
exposed to substantial financial liabilities as his company had
defaulted on a bank loan. The applicant also claimed USD 6,938.10
for loss of earnings during five years of detention.
220. The Government contested the existence of a causal link
between the alleged violations and the loss of capital, as the
decision to prefer criminal charges against the applicant was not
the subject of the Court's review in the present case. They also
exposed calculation errors in the applicant's claims.
221. The Court shares the Government's view that there has been
no causal link between the violations found and the claimed
pecuniary damage (see {Stasaitis}, cited above, з 96; {Jecius},
cited above, з 106). Consequently, it finds no reason to award the
applicant any sum under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
222. The applicant sought compensation in the sum of 50,000
euros (EUR) or such other sum as the Court considered just.
223. The Government considered that a finding of a violation
would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They also submitted
that, owing to his acquittal, the applicant was entitled to
redress at the domestic level.
224. The Court notes that it has found a combination of
particularly grievous violations in the present case. The
applicant, who was never convicted of any criminal offence, spent
more than five years in custody, in inhuman and degrading
conditions and was frequently transported to and from the
courthouse in the conditions which were likewise inhuman and
degrading. His detention was unlawful for more than a year and,
when "lawful", was not based on sufficient grounds. Finally, on
various occasions he was denied the right to have the lawfulness
of his detention examined speedily. In these circumstances, the
Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration
cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the entire
amount claimed by the applicant under this head, plus any tax that
may be chargeable on it.
C. Costs and expenses
225. The applicant claimed EUR 2,000 for his representation by
Mr Bagryanskiy, EUR 2,000 for his representation by Ms Gulakova
and a further 1,000 British pounds (GBP) for the preparation of
just-satisfaction claims by Mr Bowring.
226. The Government submitted that the applicant had been
represented in the proceedings before the Court by Mr Bagryanskiy,
Mr Ovchinnikov and Ms Moskalenko. The case file does not contain
any documents signed by either Ms Gulakova or Mr Bowring. In any
event, they considered the amounts claimed by the applicant
excessive.
227. The Court notes, firstly, that the applicant was granted
EUR 701 in legal aid for his representation by Mr Bagryanskiy. As
the applicant did not justify having incurred any expenses
exceeding that amount, the Court makes no award under this head.
As regards the preparation of the claim for just satisfaction, the
Court notes that on 2 June 2005 the President refused Ms
Gulakova's request for leave to act on behalf of the applicant. It
is true that Mr Bowring's name was printed at the bottom of the
claims, however, he did not sign the claims and there is no
indication that the applicant has paid any sums to Mr Bowring.
Accordingly, the Court makes no award in respect of legal costs
and expenses.
D. Default interest
228. The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage
points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's
detention in facility No. OD-1/T-2 ("Vladimirskiy Tsentral");
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's
transport from the remand facility to the courthouse and back;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 з 1 of
the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand
from 4 May to 8 August 2001 and from 9 January to 13 March 2002;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 з 1 of
the Convention on account of the applicant's detention on remand
from 8 August 2001 to 9 January 2002 and from 13 March 2002 to 4
December 2002;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 з 3 of
the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 з 4 of
the Convention on account of the length of proceedings on the
applicant's appeal against the decision of 28 April 2001, on his
application for release of 4 September 2001, and on his appeal
against the decision of 13 March 2002;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 з 4 of
the Convention as regards the failure to examine the merits of the
applicant's appeals against the extension order of 9 January 2002
and against the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of the "reasonable-
time" requirement of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention;
9. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 з 2 of the Convention, EUR 50,000
(fifty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months
until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 November 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Nicolas BRATZA
President
Michael O'BOYLE
Registrar
|
